JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.06.2014 passed by Special Court, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali) in FIR No. 48 dated 11.04.2013, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’ for short), registered at Police Station Sadar Kharar, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 15(c) of the NDPS Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 11.04.2013, ASI Avtar Singh (Investigating Officer) along with ASI Harminder Singh and other police officials were patrolling the area of Nayashehr. At about 10.00 p.m. he received a secret information that appellants/accused were bringing poppy husk from Rajasthan on a truck bearing No. PB-11-AL-8425 to be supplied in different parts of State of Punjab and they were coming towards Kharar from Banur side and if a check point was laid on Landran-Kharar road, they could be apprehended with the poppy husk. Since the information was trustworthy, an offence punishable under Section 15 of the NDPS Act was made out against the appellants/accused and a ruqa (Ex.P18) was sent to the police station through HC Rakesh Kumar on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P9) was recorded.

3. The Investigating Officer laid a check point and intercepted the said truck and the appellants/accused were found present in the truck. The Investigating Officer informed them of their option to get their truck searched in the presence of either a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Both the appellants/accused separately opted to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. The dissent memos were prepared for both the appellants/ accused (Ex P-11 and Ex P-12) on which their thumb impressions and signatures were placed. Information was sent to Harbans Singh, DSP (Headquarters), Mohali who reached the spot. The appellants/accused reposed confidence in the DSP and separately gave consent to get searched in his presence. Consent memos (Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4) were prepared and the same were signed and thumb marked by the appellants/accused. The truck was searched and two plastic bags containing poppy husk were recovered from the rear seat of the cabin of the truck. Two samples weighing 250 grams each were separated and the remaining contraband in both bags was weighed and the same came out to be 29.5 kg each. The sample parcels and the bulk parcels were sealed with seal bearing impression ‘AS’ and ‘HS’. Form 29 was prepared at the spot. Appellants/accused were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.P14 and Ex.P16. After completion of usual formalities of investigation, challan was presented in Court against the appellants/accused.

4. After making due compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. charges were framed against the appellants/accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined eight prosecution witnesses and closed its evidence.

6. Appellants/accused examined five witnesses in their defence.

7. After hearing arguments of both the sides and perusing the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants/ accused as stated above.

CONTENTIONS

8. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the case of the prosecution is based upon evidence which has many glaring discrepancies and violation of Sections 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act is apparent on the record. The representative samples were drawn on 12.04.2013 and the samples were deposited only on 23.04.2013 after a delay of 11 days which has not been explained by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants fu