IMPORTANT POINTS
Contraband--Recovery of illicit articles from a jeep-Not a case of personal search-Plea of offer being not given would not be of any consequence.
Contraband--Consent memos prepared and signed in the presence of PW2 and PW3-One of whom had attested the same-Consent memos proved-It can be validly taken on record for considering as evidence.

Ranjit Singh, J.

1. Two separate appeals are filed by appellants Poppy and Balwant Singh impugning their conviction under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act") and award of ten years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine of Rs. one lac each by a common judgment dated 2.2.2002. Both the appellants were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years in default of payment of fine.

2. The prosecution case leading to the trial of the appellants and their conviction runs like this :-

3. SI Ashok Mohan alongwith some other police officials was on patrol duty in the area of village Papra on 28.6.1996. He was in a vehicle Allwyh Nissan bearing registration No. PB-13B/1601, which was driven by Constable Nirmal Singh. One Balkar Singh came and joined the police party. A Jeep, make Mahindra, having registration No. PB-13E/0529 was seen coming from the side of village Ballran, which was signaled to stop. On enquiry, its driver disclosed his name as Balwant Singh son of Hardev Singh. Another person found sitting on gunny bags disclosed his name as Poppy son of Gahia. SI Ashok Mohan apprised both the appellants that he wanted to conduct the search of the bags seen in the Jeep and if the appellants so desired, the search could be conducted in the presence of Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The appellants reposed faith in the SHO and their statements in this regard were reduced into writing and were duly attested by ASI Chanan Singh and PW Balkar Singh, which were exhibited as Exhs. PB and PC. On search, the bags were found containing poppy-husk. Two sample weighing 250 grams each were taken out from each of the bag. Remaining contents of the bags, on weighment, were found to be 34 kgs. and 500 grams each. Samples and the bags containing poppy-husk were made into parcels and were sealed with seal of SI Ashok Mohan bearing impression "AM". Seal after use was handed over to PW Balkar Singh. Jeep alongwith its RC and the contraband, so recovered, were taken in possession vide memo Exh.PD. One country made pistol alongwith four live cartridges were recovered from appellant Poppy for which he is separately proceeded against. Formal FIR, Exh.PG/1, was registered on a ruqa sent by SI Ashok Mohan. Case property was deposited with MHC with the seal intact. Samples drawn were sent to laboratory for analysis and the report received from Chemical Examiner is on record as Exh.PK. On completion of investigation, the appellants were charged under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and after trial convicted and sentenced as already noticed.

4. The case of the prosecution is supported by the evidence given by ASI Chanan Singh (PW-2) and Inspector Ashok Mohan (PW-3). Constable Karnail Singh (PW-1) and ASI Surinder Singh (PW-5) tendered their affidavits proving the safe custody of the case property. Kesar Pal Singh (PW-4) working in the office of District Transport Officer, Sangrur was examined to prove the registration certificate, Exh.P2, of the Jeep, which was in the name of M/s Singla Soap Mills, Dhuri Road, Sangrur. Balkar Singh independent witness was not examined as having been won over.

5. The appellants pleaded innocence and their false implication when confronted with the evidence and the material on record brought by the prosecution evidence/witnesses. They examined Constable Chand Singh as DW-1 and Balkar Singh independent witness as DW-2 in support of their defence. The appellants have now filed the present separate appeals as already noted.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would first contend that Inspector Ashok Mohan statedly travelled in a private vehicle as his evidence would show, whereas in the FIR it is recorded that he was travelling in a Government vehicle. The counsel further contend that recovery memo/consent memo and other documents were prepared by ASI Surjit Singh, who was not examined, but the memos exhibited on record. It is a