The reliability and trustworthiness of the testimony of police officials, the admissibility of their evidence, and the significance of minor discrepancies and irregularities in the prosecution case.

Sanjay Karol, J.

1. The contradictions in the testimonies of police officials HC Nand Lal (PW-1) and Inspector Chet Singh (PW- 8), who carried out the search and seizure operations and the discrepancies in the testimonies of HHC Lalit Kumar (PW-2) and HHC Rakesh Kumar (PW-6) proving link Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? evidence are the main grounds urged before us, in assailing the judgment of conviction of the appellant under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Non association of independent witnesses is yet another ground urged by the appellant.

2. It is a matter of record that no independent witness was either associated by the police during the investigation nor examined by the prosecution during trial. From the testimonies of eight police officials, trial Court found the prosecution to have established its case of recovery of 1 k.g. 600 grams charas (a psychotropic substance) from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused.

3. The only defence taken by the accused is of innocence and false implication. Undisputedly, no evidence in rebuttal, stands led by him.

4. In short, it is the case of the prosecution that on 8.2.2015, pursuant to orders passed by the superior authorities, a naaka came to be led by Inspector Chet Singh (PW-8), S.H.O. of Police Station, Balh, at a place known as Nagchala, where at about 2.00 a.m., accused was noticed under suspicious circumstances. He was stopped and on suspicion searched. The bag carried by him contained fourteen packets of contraband substance which appeared to be charas. When weighed it was 1 k.g. and 600 grams. The recovered stuff was repacked and sealed. NCB form (Ext. PW-8/A), in triplicate, was filled up on the spot and ruka (Ext. PW-8/B) sent to the police station through HC Nand Lal (PW-1). With the registration of F.I.R. (Ext. PW- 3/A), accused came to be arrested. The contraband substance was entrusted to HHC Lalit Kumar (PW-2) who deposited it in the maalkhana and through HHC Rakesh Kumar (PW-6) sent it for chemical analysis, report whereof (Ext. PW-8/D), upon receipt, was taken on record. Also special report (Ext. PW-7/B) was sent to the superior authority. Since report of the chemical analyst established the contraband substance to be charas, challan came to be presented in the Court for trial. The accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In terms of the impugned judgment, he stands convicted and sentenced to serve imprisonment as also pay fine.

6. The apex Court in Lal Mandi v. State of W.B., (1995) 3 SCC 603, has held that, though the powers of an appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal and an appeal against conviction are equally wide but the consideration which would weigh in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal and that of conviction are distinct and separate. The presumption of innocence of an accused which gets strengthened on acquittal is not available on conviction. An appellate court may give every reasonable weight to the conclusions arrived at by the trial court but it must be remembered that an appellate court is duty-bound, in the same way as the trial court, to test the evidence extrinsically as well as intrinsically and to consider as thoroughly as the trial court, all the circumstances available on record so as to arrive at an independent finding regarding guilt or innocence of the convict. An appellate court would fail in the discharge of one of its essential duties, if it fails to itself appreciate the evidence on record and arrive at an independent finding based on the appraisal of such evidence.

7. We now proceed to examine the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. In Court, Inspector Chet Singh (PW-8) categorically states that pursuant to the dire