IMPORTANT POINT
Where two or more accused are apprehended in a Narcotic case, offer of being searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate must be given to each accused individually.

JUDGMENT

V.S. Aggarwal, J. - This is an appeal filed by Paramjit Singh and Bukkan Singh appellants directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala dated 27-10-1995. By virtue of the impugned judgment,' the learned trial court held the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter described as 'the Act'). By the subsequent findings of sentence, each of the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 1,0 pay a fine of Rs. one lac. In default of payment of fine, they were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2-1/2 years.

2. The relevant facts of the prosecution case are that on 31-7-1991 Officer-in-charge Police Station Barna1a accompanied by ASI Rabi Singh and HC Malgar Singh with other police offlcia1s held a picket on the turning of Link Road Khudi Khurd. An Eicher tractor of red colour without number plate a10ngwith the trolly was seen coming from the side of village Tapa. Officer-in-charge signalled the tractor to stop. Two persons from the trolly jumped and made good their escape. After the trolly stopped, the Officer-in-charge found that trolly was loaded with bricks. Appellant Paramjit Singh was on steering seat while Bukkan Singh was sitting by his side.

3. The Officer-in-charge asked Paramjit Singh and Bukkan Singh that the trolly was to be searched. If they desire search could be made in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Both reposed confidence in him. Thereupon the bricks were removed. It was found that there were 18 bags of poppy husk. Two samples of 250 grams each were taken from each of the bag. Each of the rest of the bags weighed 40-½ Kilograms. The representative samples and the rest of the bags were converted into different parcels and sealed by the Officer-in-charge with his seal of 'JS'. They were taken into possession vide a recovery memo. The tractor and the trolly were seized. Ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal First Information Report was recorded. Subsequently, the representative samples were sent for chemical analysis and it was opined that they were poppy husk.

4. On 7 -8-1991 at old Bus Stand, Barnala Jaspal Singh Officer-in-charge of the police station a10ngwith ASI Rabi Singh acting on the secret information arrested the other accused Mandir Singh and Jeet Singh. They were informed about the grounds of arrest and on these broad facts, challan as against the appellants and two others namely Mandir Singh and Jeet Singh was filed.

5. The learned trial court framed a charge against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined two witnesses pertaining to the recovery of poppy husk. It was followed by the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against the appellants being put to them. The appellants asserted that they had falsely been implicated. They had been brought from their village on 30-7-1991 at 6.00 P.M. in presence of Pritam Singh, Member Panchayat and others. The police had informed the respectables that since terrorists visit them, therefore, they were to be interrogated. Bikkar Singh even moved an application before Judicial Magistrate, Barnala on 31-7-1991. Subsequently, they were falsely implicated.

6. In defence the appellants examined Ravinder Singh, Additional Ahlmad of the court of Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Barnala as D.W. 1. He stated that application Ex. D 1 was presented on 31-7-1991. It bears the endorsement Ex. D1/A of the then Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Pritam Singh D.W. 2 and Dasondha Singh D.W. 3 both made statements that appellants were removed by the police and subsequently involved in the present case. Nothing was recovered from their residence. Jagroop Singh D.W.4 on the contrary had testifi