The testimony of a single public witness, if found to be credible, can be sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused person beyond a reasonable doubt.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been brought against judgment dated October 21, 1987. and subsequent order dated October 26, 1987, of an Additional Sessions Judge, by which he bad convicted the appellant of offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ndps Act ) and had sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. l,00,000. 00 (one lakh) and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

( 2 ) ON receiving a secret information at the Police Station itself which was reduced into writing in daily diary at serial No. 7a at II 05 AM with regard to aperson carrying opium, the police party comprising of Daryao Singh, SHO then posted at Police Station Sadar Bazar, Si 0m Parkash (Public Witness 4) and Constables Suresh Chand and patch Singh proceeded to the crossing of Qutab Road where public witness Ram Gopal (Public Witness I) met and joined and on the pointing out of the secret informer at about 11. 30 A. M. the appellant was apprehended and was found to be carrying an attachecase on his right shoulder and another attachecase in his left hand and after the appellant was given a choice of having his search being carried out in presence of a gazetted officer and on its being declined the attache- case, which was on the right shoulder of the appellant, was got opened with the key supplied by the appellant and it was found to contain nine packets containing opium. From each packet 50 grams of opium was taken as sample and all the nine samples were sealed, so also the remaining opium in nine packets. The total weight of the opium came to be21kgs. Both the Investigating Officer and the S. H. O. had put their seals. The recovery memo Ex. Public Witness I/a was prepared in that respect while in respect of the clothes and some money recovered from the other attachecase and person of the appellant, recovery memo Ex. PWI/b was prepared. Both the recovery memos were signed by Ram Gopal, Inspector Daryao Singh and Constable Patch Singh, Rukka Ex. PW4/a was prepared on the basis of which the case against the appellant as per FIR, copy Ex. PW6/a, was registered. The case property was deposited in Malkhana and these nine samples were taken by Constable Ram Kumar (Public Witness 3) from Malkhana on September 11, 1986 and deposited at the Central Forensic Science Labora. tory and the CFSL report Ex. PW4/d was received showing that the contents of the samples gave positive test for opium and the percentage of morphine in respect of each sample was also noted down in the report.

( 3 ) THE prosecution case was sought to be proved from the statements of PWI Ram Gopal, PW4 SI 0m Parkash and PW5 Inspector Daryao Singh whereas PW2 is Moharir Malkhana who proved entries from the Malkhana register, of which copy is Ex. PW2/a. PW6 was the Duty Officer, who had recorded the FIR of this case.

( 4 ) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, who was appointed Amicus Curiae at State expense on the request of the appellant, is that the public witness, who has been joined, is a stock witness of the police and if not the stock witness, was a witness who was under the influence of the police, hence, no credence should be given to his testimony. PWI Ram Gopal has stated that he was having the business of binding of books at a regular shop located in Ram Nagar in the area of Police Station Nabi Karim. He admitted frankly that he knew Inspector Daryao Singh and SI Om Parkash even earlier as he bad been coming to the Police Station occasionally but he stated that except for one police case of kidnapping be had never appeared in any other case as a witness. The Investigating Officer had explained that this Ram Gopal has been rendering some assistance in civil defence and the office of civil defence is located within the precincts of the Police Station. It is on account of this witness participating in some work in