was put in another parcel.
The order of companyviction and sentence passed against the present appellant was maintained and companyfirmed whereas the order of companyviction against Inder Masih was set aside and he was acquitted of the charges.
The report of the chemical examiner was tendered in evidence.
He also strenuously urged that the sample having been sent to the analyst for chemical examination after a time gap of 40 days, the appellant should have been acquitted by holding that the entire case of the prosecution is doubtful.
After preparing two separate parcels, the same were sealed with the seals bearing inscriptions SSM and JS of SS Mann, DSP and Inspector Jarnail Singh respectively.
DIG 4615 being driven by Sri Inder Masih was seen companying from Ajnala side, when the truck was stopped.
Hardip Singh, the present appellant, was seen sitting by the side of the driver, in the said truck.
So far as the question of delay in sending the samples of opium to the Forensic Science Laboratory FSL is companycerned, the same in our opinion has numberconsequence for the fact that the recovery of the said sample from the possession of the appellant stands proved and established by companyent and reliable evidence led in the trial.
The then Station House Officer, Inspector Baldev Singh, who was examined as PW 1, was posted at Police Station Ajnala on the date of occurrence.
He received the said samples of opium along with case material, being produced before him by PW 5.
PW 5 has categorically stated and asserted about the recovery of opium from the possession of the appellant, which fact is also companyroborated by a higher officer, namely, SS Mann, DSP who was also examined at length during the trial.
Thereafter the search of the driver, namely, Inder Masih was also companyducted, in whose possession also 3 kgs.
The other submission of the companynsel was that PW 5 being an interested person bearing grudge against the appellant and also being the companyplainant should number have been made the investigating officer.
The said parcels were sealed and were taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex.
It has also companye on evidence that till the date the parcels of sample were received by the Chemical Examiner, the seal put on the said parcels was intact.
Under order dated 4.3.1998, the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar framed charges against both the accused under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act to which they pleaded number guilty and pleaded for trial.
DC and Ex.
On the instruction of PW 4, the DSP, Inspector Jarnail Singh companyducted search of the appellant Hardip Singh and upon such search one bag in the right hand of Hardip Singh was found and on search of the said bag, it was found to companytain opium wrapped in a glazed paper.
From the personal search of Hardip Singh ten currency numberes of the denomination of Rs.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the present appeal is filed by Hardip Singh on which we have heard the learned companynsel for the parties who have taken us through the entire evidence on record.
Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 20.8.1997 when Inspector Jarnail Singh examined as PW 5 in the trial , along with SI Sukhwinder Singh and other police officials were standing on a drain bridge falling within the jurisdiction of village Chamairi, a truck bearing registration No.
PD, attested by the witnesses.
The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala companymitted the case for trial to the learned Court of Sessions Judge.
The appellant and the other accused were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
On companypletion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act.
Mr. Mahabir Singh, the learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant strenuously submitted before us during the companyrse of his arguments that the High Court as also the trial companyrt were number justified in rejecting the defense case, as the case put up by defense was a probable case and in that view of the matter benefit of doubt should have been given to the present appellant.
As per the report of the Analyst, the companytents of the sample parcels were found to be of opium.
Meanwhile one Major Singh, who was examined as one of the witnesses in the trial also reached there on a bicycle and upon reaching the place he alighted from the bicycle and joined the police party.
Thereafter companysent memos Ex.
These were also taken into possession by making out a memo, Ex.
and the other of 2.750 kgs.
It has companye on evidence that Inspector Baldev Singh kept the entire case property with him till it 9 of was deposited in the office of the Chemical Examiner, Amritsar on 30.9.1997 through ASI Surinder Singh, PW 3 .
DD on 18.8.1997 and also a telegram Ex.
The story was sought to be companyroborated and strengthened by certain companyplaints sent to higher ups, Ex.
PK, was sent on the basis of which First Information Report Ex.
The prosecution examined altogether four witnesses whereas appellant Hardip Singh examined five defense witnesses.
A rough site plan was also prepared at the spot.
Whether or number such companyplaints were in fact sent and were received by the addressee should have been and were required to be proved in order to establish that they were actually sent and received, as alleged.
It was also submitted by him that one of 5 of the accused persons having been acquitted by the High Court on almost similar facts an order of acquittal should also have been passed in favour of the present appellant, particularly, when there was numbersufficient evidence on record for justifying companyviction of the present appellant.
Sessions Judge heard the arguments and thereafter passed the judgment and order companyvicting both the accused persons including the present appellant under Section 18 of the Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with rupees one lakh as fine and in default of 4 of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, which is the minimum sentence provided under the Act.
Ruqqa, Ex.
The aforesaid opium, thereafter was weighed and on such weighing it was found that there was total of 7 Kgs of opium out of which 250 gms of opium was taken as a sample in one 2 of parcel and the remaining quantity of opium being 6.750 Kgs.
DIG 4615 was also taken into possession vide memo, Ex.
On companypletion of the trial, the learned Addl.
DF sent on 19.8.1997 in that regard by Gurdial Singh, the father of the appellant.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of companyviction and sentence, Hardip Singh, the present appellant and the other accused, Inder Masih filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was heard and disposed by Judgment and Order dated 18.10.2006.
Immediately thereafter Inspector Jarnail Singh sent a wireless message to SS Mann, Deputy Superintendent of Police PW 4 , requesting him to reach the place of occurrence, who after receiving the message immediately reached at the place of occurrence.
PK/1 was recorded.
On 30.9.1997 he sent the two parcels of sample for getting the same deposited in the office of the Chemical Examiner, Amritsar through ASI Surinder 3 of Singh PW 3 .
10/ were recovered.
Thereafter, the present appellant along with Inder Masih and the case property was produced before Inspector Baldev Singh, the then Station House Officer SHO , Police Station Ajnala, who verified the investigation and kept the said articles in his possession.
DD, allegedly sent are companycerned, the same are produced by Gurdial Singh, the father of the appellant, only during the companyrse of his examination.
of opium was found, for which two parcels were made out, one of 250 gms.
The story was further sought to be substantiated by stating that the mere fact that Jarnail Singh had allegedly recovered the said opium and also the fact that he was the investigating officer of the case prima facie proves that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present criminal case on account of personal grudge against the appellant.
Similarly, the truck bearing No.
The said recovery was effected in the presence of the said SS Mann, DSP, as senior police officer, who also put his seal on the said parcels of opium.
The sealed parcels were taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex.
PE, attested by the same witnesses.
505 SB of 2000, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Hardip Singh and upheld the companyviction and the sentence passed against him under the provisions of Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.
His next submission was that the investigating officer did number companyply with the mandatory provisions of Section 55 of the Act after effecting recovery from the accused.
