MAIN POINTS
Identification test does not constitute substantive evidence. Non-holding of TI Parade does not vitiate conviction.
A person in control of the poppy husk, is in conscious possession of the same.
Section 50 applies only in case of personal search of a person.
Non examination of independent witnesses does not discredit prosecution case if evidence of official witnesses are trustworthy.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

In this appeal, two appellants, namely, Kulwinder Singh and Amrik Singh faced trial along with three others for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act”) before the Special Court, Sangrur and were found guilty for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh each and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. The conviction and sentence were called in question before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 384-SB of 1998 and the High Court after re-appreciating the evidence, gave the stamp of approval to the same.

2. The prosecution case, as unfurled, is that on 17.4.1988, Jarnail Singh, ASI, along with other police officials was patrolling on the canal bridge in the area of village Raidhriana. In the early part of the morning, a truck bearing no. DIL-781 came from the side of village Raidhriana and it was proceeding towards the canal bridge. When the truck reached near the police party, Jarnail Singh, gave a signal with a torch light and asked the driver to stop. After the vehicle stopped, it was circled by the police officials. The driver of the truck, on enquiry, disclosed his name as Balwinder Singh and Devender Singh and Bagga Singh were sitting by his side on the front seat. Jagminder Singh and four others were sitting on the back side of the truck and on a query being made, all except Jagminder Singh jumped from the truck and took to their heels. Chase by the police party was unsuccessful. The persons who were successful in running away are Satta @ Satnam Singh, Amrik Singh, Kulwinder Singh @ Kala and Jagdev Singh @ Jagga. The Investigating Officer apprehended Jagminder Singh, Balwinder Singh, Devinder Singh and Bagga Singh; and in their presence, the vehicle was searched. On a search being made, the police found 110 bags of poppy husk and each bag contained 38 kgs. Samples were collected from each bag, duly sealed and recovery memos were prepared and eventually they were sent for chemical examination. The present accused-appellants and Satta @ Satnam Singh were arrested on 11.5.1988 by ASI, Gurdas Singh, PW-1. In course of investigation, the investigating agency recorded statements of certain witnesses, obtained FSL report and ultimately placed the chargesheet before the concerned Magistrate, who in turn committed the matter to the Special Court under the NDPS Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge, examined seven witnesses. The main witnesses are ASI, Gurdas Singh, PW-1, Jagjivan Singh, PW-2, Ajit Singh, PW-3 and Om Prakash, PW-7. ASI, Jarnail Singh, could not be examined as he had expired before the commencement of the evidence of the prosecution. The accused-appellants took the plea that they were brought from the village and falsely implicated in the case and there was no recovery effected from them. The defence in support of its stand examined nine witnesses, DW-1 to DW-9.

4. The learned trial Judge appreciating the evidence on record found the appellants and two others guilty of the offence and sentenced them, as has been stated hereinbefore. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants along with two others preferred Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 1998 and Bagga Singh and Balwinder Singh preferred separate appeals. It was contended before the High Court that the identity of the appellants were not established during the trial inasmuch as no identification parade was conducted by the investigating officer; that the prosecution had not proved that the accused-appellants were in conscious possession of the poppy husk; that Labh Singh and Harvinder Singh though had joined the investigating officer at the time of alleged search and seizure, they were not exam