Honble SABHARWAL, J.–The appellant, Bahadur Singh and one Amreek Singh were convicted by the Special Court constituted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) having been found guilty for the offence under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the Act. Both of them were sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each. The High Court has, however, allowed the appeal of Amreek Singh. His conviction and sentence has been set aside. The conviction and sentence of Bahadur Singh having been maintained, he is in appeal before us on grant of special leave.

(2). Bahadur Singh was a driver and Amreek Singh a cleaner of a truck. The case of the prosecution is that information had been received that the poppy straw is being carried in the said truck. On search of the truck four polythene bags containing poppy straw weighing 3.900 kgs. was found. After completion of the formalities, the accused were tried which resulted in the conviction and sentence as aforesaid.

(3). According to the prosecution there were two independent witnesses in whose presence the poppy straw was recovered and seized. The prosecution, however, examined only one of them, namely, Pawan Kumar Sharma, PW1. PW 1 did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. He though admitted his signatures as a punch witness to the documents but denied that in his presence 3.900 kgs. of poppy straw was recovered and seized from the driver, Bahadur Singh and cleaner, Amreek Singh. The conviction was, however, based on the sole testimony of Investigating Officer, Head Constable Gontiya, PW3.

(4). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no reliable evidence to establish the recovery and seizure of the contraband and on the facts and circumstances of the case the conviction on the sole testimony of PW3 is unwarranted. There is substance in the submission.

(5). There is serious material discrepancies in the evidence in respect of recovery and seizure. PW4, a constable, stated in the cross-examination that when Pawan Kumar Sharma reached Kabir Chowk where the truck was apprehended PW3 told him that there is poppy straw in the truck and when they reached there, PW3 had already taken the search of the truck. There are also serious discrepancies in respect of the deposit of the seized poppy straw in the Maalkhana. The de posit is shown to have been made under Entry No. 68-A dated 11.10.1997. The date of the incident is 10.10.1997. The Entry above Entry 68-A, is Entry No. 68 dated 15.10.1997. The Entry after Entry 68-A, is Entry No. 69. That is also dated 15.10.1997. The concerned police official who made these entries was not examined by the prosecution but was examined as a defence witness. His explanation to the aforesaid entries was that he forgot to make an Entry of the seized material in the Maalkhana register and made the entry later after 15th day. The explanation is far from satisfactory. Assuming he forgot to make the entry, that then cannot be made by interpolation as aforesaid. The entry could be made at its appropriate place under the correct date on which it was actually made and delay in making the entry could be explained. He further deposed that since no cash was deposited he did not make any Entry for receipt of Rs. 27,000/- connected with the crime. In respect of this amount, PW3, the Investigating Officer, in cross-examination stated as under:

``During arrest, 54 currency note of Rs. 500 denomination each were seized from Bahadur Singh, which was Rs. 27,000/- in all and it is true. It is wrong to say that Rs. 27.000/- were never returned to Bahadur Singh. Head Moharrir Jagat Ram of police station has got the receipt of the refund of that money. It is wrong to say that for harassing accused Bahadur Singh and Amreek Singh, I entered in their truck and searched the truck unnecessarily and the accused were unnecessarily arrested. It is wrong to say that Rs. 27,000/- were not returned to accuse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document