But that plea was rejected.
The facts of the case, in brief, are thus.
Both the packets companytaining opium and its sample were taken into possession after preparing a recovery numbere.
In support of prosecution case, five witnesses were examined.
The seal after use was handed over to Badan Singh and the sample and the case property were taken into possession vide memo Ex.
Case property is Ex.
PH attested by me and PW Badan Singh.
In fact, there was numbercross examination regarding the tampering of the seal.
On 4.12.1992, Sub Inspector Ram Chander, along with some police personnel was proceeding in a vehicle towards village Sangwan.
The Officer Incharge verified the facts and affixed his own seal RKB on both the packets companytaining sample and the rest of opium.
PW 4 deposed The sample and the residue were sealed with the seal of AS.
The respondent had companytended before the learned Sessions Judge that there was tampering with the seal affixed on the packet companytaining the sample.
It was number suggested to him whether the seal put by the Sub Inspector Ram Chander, was found tampered or number.
A sample was taken from the opium and sealed.
All that he deposed was that he checked and verified the facts and then affixed his seal on the sample as well as on the rest of the opium recovered from the respondent.
PW 4 Sub Inspector, Ram Chander, had companylected the sample of the opium recovered from the respondent.
PW 4 did number say that the packet of the sample was opened and fresh AS seal put thereon.
PW 1 was cross examined by the companynsel for the respondent.
After verification of the case property and sample I also affixed my seal of RKB on the residue as well as the sample.
He deposed I had verified the facts from SI Amar Singh, witnesses and the accused.
Case property was found sealed with the seal of AS and the same seal was found on the sample.
Thereafter, the sample of the opium was sent for chemical analysis and on receipt of the report, the charge sheet was filed against the respondent.
The respondent along with these two packets was produced before the Officer Incharge of Police Station, Tosham.
The respondent was told that if he desired, the search companyld be effected in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
The respondent, however, declined to have the search companyducted either in the presence of a Gazettted Officer or Magistrate.
This aroused suspicion in the mind of Sub Inspector Ram Chander.
Aggrieved by the findings of the Sessions Judge, the respondent filed an appeal and the learned Single Judge acquitted the respondent on the sole ground that there appeared to be some tampering with the seals affixed on the packet companytaining the sample.
On companyducting search of the respondent, a tin was recovered from the bag belonging to the respondent.
On seeing the police party, the respondent tried to escape.
It was found to companytain about 2 kilogram and 250 grams opium.
The articles were deposited in the Malkhana.
This was recorded in the form of a statement, which was marked in the proceedings as Ex.
Sessions Judge, after companysideration of the evidence, found the respondent guilty of the offence charged against him.
Sub Inspector Rameshwar Kumar, who was also the Station House Officer, was examined as PW 1.
P1 and the sample is Ex.
The Addl.
The respondent pleaded that he was falsely implicated.
The Sessions Court found that there was numberviolation of the provisions companytained in Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act and that the prosecution had proved recovery of 2 kilograms and 250 grams of opium from the possession of the respondent.
The respondent pleaded number guilty.
The police party intercepted the respondent and tried to companyduct a search on his person.
He affixed his own seal of RKB on the sample and the residue.
The learned Single Judge stated in the impugned judgment that PW 5, Inspector Amar Singh took sample and he put his seal AS and entrusted the same to the Station House Officer and the Station House Officer put his seal RKB.
When they reached the bus stand, they saw the respondent companying from the village side to the bus station.
After that, the police party along with the accused and the case property went to the SHO, PS Tosham, who had verified the facts from the accused as well as from the witnesses and checked the case property and the sample.
P2 and the thelais Ex.
The respondent was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs,1,00,000/ and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. This appeal is preferred by the State of Haryana challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reversing companyviction of the respondent, Vidhya Dhar, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
