IMPORTANT POINT
Contraband - Recovery - Examination of accused - Non putting of a specific question with regard to conscious possession would not cause any prejudice to the accused, when he was given full opportunity to explain the case against him.

VIRENDER SINGH, J.

1. Appellant Raj Kumar stands convicted under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act ( for short the ‘Act’) vide impugned judgment of learned sessions Judge, Ferozepur dated February 2, 2000 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for one year. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, he has preferred the instant appeal.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on January 29, 2000, inspector Harcharan Singh (PW-2) along with ASI Darshan Singh (PW-1) and other police officials was on patrol duty and was going from village Bahmniwala towards village Bandiwala in a government jeep and Gipsy. When they reached on the seepage bridge in the area of village Totianwali, they spotted a Maruti car bearing registration No. PCE- 3700 of biscuit colour coming from the opposite direction. SI Harcharan Singh gave a signal to stop the car. The driver of the car after stopping it opened the door and made an attempt to run away. He was apprehended at the spot. Another person, who was sitting on the rear seat of the car, ran away after alighting from the car. He was apprehended by ASI Iqbal Singh with the help of his companions. The person, who was on the steering of the car and was apprehended by SI Harcharan Singh, disclosed his name as Raj Kumar ( appellant- herein), son of Devi Lal, resident of village Dodewala, police station Sadar Abohar. SI Harcharan Singh gave him offer that his car was to be searched and the same could be done in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. However, the appellant reposed his faith in him ( SI Harcharan Singh). In this regard, consent memo. ( Ex.P1) was prepared, which was signed by the appellant and attested by ASI Darshan Singh and Constable Satinder Singh. Before conducting search of the car, the SI offered the appellant to take his search, but the latter showed his satisfaction. In this regard a memo. (Ex.P2) was prepared, which was signed by the appellant and attested by ASI Darshan Singh and Constable Satinder Singh. Thereafter the car was searched by SI Harcharan Singh as per rules. On search from beneath the driver’s seat and below his feet, a bag of fertilizer containing opium wrapped in the glazed paper was recovered. On weighment, it was found to be six kilograms. 100 grams of opium was separated as sample. It was put into dabbi tin and its separate parcel was prepared. The remainder opium was put in the Pipa tin along with glazed paper and bag of the fertilizer. In this regard also a separate parcel was prepared. Both the parcels were sealed with the seal bearing inscription ‘HS’ ( for Harcharan Singh). The sample seal was also prepared separately. Both the parcels and the Maruti car were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.P3, attested by ASI Darshan Singh and Constable Satinder Singh. Rough site plan ( Ex.PC) of the place of recovery was prepared with correct marginal notes. On personal search of the appellant, a sum of Rs.8,000/- were recovered from the pocket of his pant. Registration book of the car was also recovered from the pocket of his shirt. These documents were also taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.P4, attested by the aforesaid witnesses. Ruqqa (Exhibit P5) was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P5/A) was recorded. Separate proceedings against Naresh Kumar, who was apprehended by ASI Iqbal Singh were conducted. On return, SI Harcharan Singh kept the case property with him. On the next day, he produced the appellant and the case property before the learned Illaqa Magistrate vide request Ex.P7 & P8. After completion of investigation and receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner ( Exhibit P9), the appellant was challaned. He was charged under Section 18 of the Act, for which he now stands convicted.

3. In order to strengthen its ca