The admissibility of evidence and the requirement for proper identification of the accused were central legal principles in the judgment.

( 1 ) BOTH these criminal appeals under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code" hereinafter) are directed against the judgment and order dated 15-7-2003 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, hanumangarh (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal case No. 17/2001, whereby the trial Court convicted both the appellants for the offence under Section 8/15 (C) of the Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "the ndps Act" hereinafter) and sentenced each of them to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the judgment and order impugned, convicting and sentencing the appellants, both the appellants have filed the afore-mentioned appeals.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of these two appeals are that on 26-9-2001, PW 1 Ranjit Singh, Station House Officer, Police station, Rawatsar, along with PW 7 Sant Kumar, PW 8 babrubhan, Mubarak Ali, Rajendra Singh, Begraj and driver Ravi darshan, while holding a Nakabandi at 11:45 PM, noticed a maruti Esteem car coming at a great speed, which was got stopped by giving a signal and was surrounded by PW 6 Ranjit singh and other members of the police party. Two persons were occupying the car, one was sitting on the drivers seat and the another by his side. Appellant Ramandeep Singh, who was on the driving seat of the car, on being asked, disclosed his name, fathers name and the address etc. and the other person sitting by his side disclosed his name as appellant Kulwant Singh.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, both the appellants, apprehending the action against them, fled away in the nearby fields. They were chased by the police party and appellant Ramandeep Singh was caught-hold; however, appellant Kulwant Singh managed to flee away taking advantage of darkness and the crops standing in the nearby fields and, therefore, appellant Kulwant Singh could not be apprehended. The Maruti Esteem Car No. DL. 1-CE-9536, of which the appellants were the occupants, on being searched, was found carrying three bags, each containing 40 kgs of poppy husk. A tarpaulin was spread and the contraband poppy husk of all the three begs were put in it and two samples of 500 grams each were taken. A specimen seal was prepared and the samples and the remaining poppy husk were sealed. After usual investigation, the police filed Challan against both the appellants for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. The charges were framed by the trial Court, to which the appellants denied. The prosecution adduced evidence by producing eleven witnesses and the documents EX. P/1 to EX. P/24. Both the appellants made statements under Section 313 of the Code and denied the allegations. Appellant Ramandeep Singh stated that he, along with one Sanjeev Kumar, came to Rawatsar for searching a shop for Sanjeev Kumar and the police party apprehended him and got his signatures on certain papers.

( 4 ) APPELLANT Kulwant Singh denied the allegation and stated that he has been wrongly implicated in the case. DW 1 Mittu Singh was produced as a defence witness. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against both the appellants and, therefore, both the appellants were convicted and sentenced as noticed-above. Hence these two appeals.

( 5 ) I have heard Mr. H. S. S. Kharlia, learned counsel for appellant Ramandeep Singh and Mr. B. S. Rathore, learned counsel for appellant Kulwant Singh and also heard the learned public Prosecutor for the State.

( 6 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for appellant ramandeep Singh that there are contradictions in regard to sealing of the samples and, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the case of the prosecution is doubtf