( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgmentand order dated 26/05/1992 passed by Shri R. L. Chugh, Additionalsessions Judge, Delhi, whereby he found the accused Gurcharan Singh aliaschanni (hereinafter referred to as the appellant No. 1 for the sake of convenience ). guilty under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropicsubstances Act, 1985 (for short the Act), and under Section 353/34 of theindian Penal Code. He sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment forten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac under Section 21 of the Act. Incase of his failure to clear the fine he was further directed to undergo simpleimprisonment for one year. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for two years and to a fine of Rs. one thousand under Section353/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he wasfurther directed to undergo simple imprisonment for ore month. Accusedavtar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the appellant No. 2 for the sake ofbrevity) was ordered to be released on probation on his furnishing a personalbond in the sum of Rs. 5. 000. 00 with one. surety in the like amount to keeppeace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years under Section353/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the saidjudgment and order the. appellants have approached this Court.

( 2 ) LBN Khaldun an eminent historian who lived and trod this terrafirma like an ordinary mortal amongst the homosapiens, yet left his footprints on the sand uftime,has observed. "the rule of distinguishing what istrue from what is false in bistory is based on its possibility or impossibility"in a given situation. The above principle mutatis mutandis is also applicableto the cases which the Courts are called upon to deal with, with the onlydistinction that a historian 16 concerned with unearthing the truth in regardto the events which took place in the hoary past, while the Judges have toascertain and cull the truth from facts and events in presenti.

( 3 ) WITH the above exordium let us now see and try to find out as to whether the case of the prosecution as unfolded through the report undersection 173 Cr. P. O. , F. I. R. (Ex. PW7/a), Ruqqa (Ex. PW7/b) and variousother documents is plausible or probable and appeals to a reasonable prudentas a true narration of facts and could have happened in the way and manneras it is alliged to have taken place. This is a condition precedent for theprosecution to bring home the guilt to the accused. In case it fails in itsprimary duty, the Courts need not go any further and need not make anymore inquiry inasmuch as the said case is liable to be flung to the winds onthis short ground alone.

( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution was set up in the FIR (Ex. PW7/a) andruqqa (Ex. PW7/b) is that Shri Shakti Singh (since deceased) had had aninformation that appellant No. 1 who was a resident of J. J. Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi, was dialing in smack. He developed the said information andcame to the conclusion that in case someone was sent as a decoy customer then he was likely to sell the smack. Shri Shakti Singh deceased contactedacp Crime Brands and formed a raiding party on 29/07/1987 on hisinstructions which consisted of Inspector Shakti Singh (Crime Branch), SIMohinder Singh. SI Manmohan, SI Bal Kishan, ASI Prithvi Singh, who wasarmed with a revolver, (later on promoted as Sub Inspector), HC Jagdish,constable Ramesh, Constable Surinder Singh and PW3 Rajbir Singh, a pistalemployee. Shri Rajbir Singh (PW3) was assigned the role of a decoy customer. He was apprised of the facts of the present case. He was handed over asum of Rs. 6000. 00 vide entrustment memo Ex. PW3/ A. The above raidingparty set out for the house of appellant No. 1 situated as alluded to above. Efforts were made to include some other members of the public in the raidingparty. In this connection, Shri Shakti Singh asked five or seven passers by tojoin the raiding party, but none of them agreed a