Contraband - Prosecution must prove to the hilt that from the stage of recovery, till handing over of the sample to the chemical examiner, it was not tampered with at all.

Virender Singh, J.

1. Appellant Gian Singh stands convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short to be referred as "the Act") vide impugned judgment of Additional Sessions Judge dated 30.8.1993 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, he has preferred the instant appeal.

2. The appellant stands charged for the aforesaid offence for allegedly keeping in his possession ten bags of poppy husk each containing 32.250 kgs. On 6.4.2002 when ASI Jaswant Singh, PW4 along with other police officials was holding a Naka on the turning of road leading to village Chamba Khurd, a truck bearing registration No. UP-81-8729 was noticed coming to that side. It was stopped. The same was being driven by the appellant. Pargat Singh, his co- accused (since acquitted) was on the back side of the truck. He jumped from the truck and ran away. The appellant was apprehended. In order to show the compliance of Section 50 of the Act, he wanted to get the search of the truck conducted before some Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. When the appellant reposed confidence in the police, the truck was searched by ASI Jaswant Singh. Ten bags containing 32.250 kgs. of poppy husk were recovered. 250 grams of poppy husk was taken out from each of the bag as sample and put into sealed parcels which were duly sealed with the seal impression of JS (Jaswant Singh). The remaining bags were also separately sealed with the same seal impression. The case property was taken into possession along with sample parcels vide recovery memo attested by the PWs. The truck and the registration certificate were also taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. Licence of appellant was also taken into possession vide a separate recovery memo. On receipt of the ruqa sent to the Police Station, formal first information report was recorded. After completing all the formalities at the spot, the appellant and the case property were produced before SI Santokh Singh, the SHO Police Station Sarhali, who, after verification also sealed the parcels with his own seal bearing impression AS. The case property was then deposited with Moharrir Head Constable.

3. Pargat Singh, co-accused of the appellant was arrested subsequently on 23.4.1993.

4. After the receipt of report of the Chemical Examiner, the appellant and his co-accused were challaned. They were charged under Section 15 of the Act. After appreciation of the entire evidence, learned trial Court convicted the appellant, whereas his co-accused has been acquitted.

5. Hence, this appeal.

6. The case of the prosecution mainly hinges on the statement of ASI Mohan Singh (PW2) and ASI Jaswant Singh (PW4), the Investigating Officer as the recovery was allegedly effected in the presence of both these witnesses. In order to prove the compliance of Section 55 of the Act, the prosecution has examined SI Santokh Singh, SHO Police Station Sarhali (PW3). Similarly, in order to prove the link evidence, the prosecution relies upon the affidavit of Head Constable Satnam Singh (Exhibit PD) and of Constable Kanwaljit Singh (Exhibit PD/1). The report of Chemical Examiner is proved as Exhibit PG. Certain witnesses were given up as unnecessary.

7. The defence set up by the appellant, as is clear from his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is of false implication. He takes the plea that his truck was being used by the Police continuously for a number of days and when he demanded the charges, he was falsely implicated in this case. However, no defence was led from the side of the appellant except producing one telegram (marked A), that too from the side of Pargat Singh, his co-accused.

8. I have heard Mr. Bipan Ghai, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. MS