Harbans Lal, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.5.2005/order of sentence dated 23.5.2005 passed by the court of learned Special Judge, Faridabad whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Been Maya to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1.00 lac under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, the Act) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. Succinctly put, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 18.12.2003 at about 12.40 P.M. Maya Ram Sub Inspector, Station House Officer, Police Station G.R.P. Faridabad amongst other police officials happened to be present at Platform No.1, Railway Station Faridabad in connection with patrol duty and crime detection. He was chattering with Balram Singh son of Kanwar Singh resident of Aurangabad. Meanwhile, the police officials who were on duty with the Sub Inspector apprehended eight persons including the accused. The accused Been Maya tried to escape during the checking of train between Palwal and Hodal. She was intercepted and was produced before the above mentioned Sub Inspector at Faridabad. Suspecting that she was in possession of some contraband, the notice under Section 50 of the Act was served upon her. She opted to have the search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Satya Vati D.S.P. was called at the spot. On search, 1.620 kgs charas duly wrapped in a cloth and tied around the body of the accused was recovered. Two samples of 20 grams each were drawn and converted into parcels. The remainder was also turned into parcel. These parcels were sealed and seized vide recovery memo. The accused was put under arrest. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, where on its basis formal F.I.R. was recorded. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the court for trial of the accused.

3. The accused was charged under Section 20 of the Act to which she did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined Constable Raj Kumar PW-1, Constable Narbir Singh PW-2, ASI Bijender Singh PW-3, ASI Shri Chand PW-4, Head Constable Ved Pal PW-5, Sub Inspector Maya Ram PW-6, Satya Dy.S.P PW-7 and closed its evidence by tendering the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory.

4. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against her and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. She did not adduce any evidence in her defence.

5. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, she has preferred this appeal.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.

7. To begin with Mr. S.S.Siao, learned counsel for the appellant urged with a good deal of force that it is the specific case of the prosecution that the seal after use was handed over to Balram Singh public witness who has been given up on the pretense that he has been won over by the accused with the result the accused has been deprived of her valuable and indefeasible right to cross-examine him. If he had been examined, it would have been wrenched out from him as to whether the seal was returned by him before or after the dispatch of sample parcels for chemical analysis.

8. To tide over these submissions, the learned State counsel pressed into service that this witness having been gained over by the accused, the prosecution could not be expected to examine him.

9. On giving a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions the view I am disposed to take is that the contention raised by Mr. Siao on behalf of the appe