Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1071 (RAJ)

Sardar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2001-07-12

JAGAT SINGH

body2001
Honble SINGH, J.–This appeal has been filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 4.4.2000 delivered by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jodhpur by which each of the three appellants herein have been convicted under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as ``the Act) and awarded minimum sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. (2). Brief facts are that PW-1 Shri Kalyanmal Meena Dy. S.P. who was Circle Officer of Jaisalmer on 1.4.1999 at 3.45 P.M. received a secret information at his office that three persons named Sardar Singh, Rajmal and Moolchand are likely to hand over charas to some persons at Damar Road between Baramsar and Baisakh. Mr. Kalyanmal got the above secret information recorded in his rojnamcha at Sr. No. 31 which is Ex.P/1 and simultaneously informed the Superintendent of Police on telephone who was also having his office nearby and in the same building. He similarly also informed in writing about the above information to the Superintendent of Police. Thereafter two independent witnesses viz. PW-3 Ramesh and PW-4 Kishan Singh were also called. Similarly services of PW-11 Ajay Singh Rathore, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaisalmer were also requisitioned. Upon their coming the raiding party started towards the place of occurrence on a police gypsy jeep at about 4.25 P.M. and got the jeep secluded behind the jal trees and got the members of the party deputed at sundry places. After some time three persons were seen coming from Baramsar side on a scooter which was being driven by a person wearing white dress. Two persons were pillion riders. The scooter stopped nearabout jal trees and all the three got down. At that juncture PW-2 Narpatdan ASI called out that these were the three persons who are mentioned by mukhbir. Upon this one of the accused persons shouted that police gypsy is standing there and thereafter all the three started running away holding one bag each in their hands. At this the police party chased and caught hold of them alongwith bags in their hands. Thereafter a joint notice Ex.P/3 under Section 50 of the Act was given to all the three persons asking them that if they want their search can be conducted before a Magistrate or any Gazetted Officer. The above notice was given in presence of PW-11 Ajay Singh Rathore. SDM. Thereafter a joint notice Ex.P/3 under Section 50 of the Act was given to all the three persons asking them that if they want their search can be conducted before a Magistrate or any Gazetted Officer. The above notice was given in presence of PW-11 Ajay Singh Rathore. SDM. All the three accused persons voluntarily stated that they can be searched by PW-1 Kalyanmal Dy. S.P. in presence of SDM. Thereafter the personal search was conducted and the bag which was with Sardar Singh was having two polythene packets inside weighing 1830 grams whereas the bag with Rajmal contained 920 grams and with Moolchand was 750 grams. All the packets were having charas and they were not having any licence to carry the same. Therefore, the above quantity was confiscated and two samples from each packet weighing 60 grams each were taken out, seized and sealed there and then. The remaining material was also seized and sealed then and there. In presence of Ramesh and Kishan Singh attesting independent witnesses as also in presence of PW-11 Ajay Singh Rathore SDM and the members of the raiding party. A seizure memo Ex.P/4 was also prepared there and then. Scooter was also seized vide Ex.P/6. Site plan map Ex.P/5 was also prepared there and then. All the three accused were put under arrest vide memos Ex. P/7 to Ex.P/9 and thereafter usual investigation was conducted. The samples so seized and sealed were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur in sealed condition whereupon examination vide report Ex.P/19 they were found containing charas. (3). The learned trial court relying upon the testimony of PW-1 Kalyanmal Dy. S.P.-cum-Circle Officer as also PW-11 Ajay Singh Rathore SDM and other witnesses of the raid party has convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. (4). Mr. Garg as also Mr. Mehta learned counsel for the appellants have taken me through the evidence of the prosecution and tried to bring home that there is a total non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act. Nowhere it has been indicated in notice Ex.P/3 that accused appellants were informed of their RIGHT to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Similarly, a joint notice has been given to all the three accused persons which is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act and the trial has been vitiated. Nowhere it has been indicated in notice Ex.P/3 that accused appellants were informed of their RIGHT to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Similarly, a joint notice has been given to all the three accused persons which is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act and the trial has been vitiated. In support of above contention a judgment of our own High Court reported as Prakash Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1), was relied upon. With regard to a joint notice to all the three accused persons Paramjit Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab (2), Single Bench Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court was relied upon. In Prakash Singhs case (supra) neither it was mentioned that the notice was given under Section 50 of the Act nor it was mentioned that the accused has a choice to be searched before a Magistrate. In the notice the accused was informed that Shri Vikram Singh PW- 12 Gazetted Officer was also with the raiding party and in such circumstances compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act was not found sufficient among others infirmities. Similarly, in Paramjit Singhs case (supra) 41 kg. of poppy husk was recovered from the search of tractor trolly and a joint notice under Section 50 of the Act was given to both the accused appellants that if they desire search could be made in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The trial court acquitted one of the accused and convicted the other one. Upon appeal, the learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the facts and circumstances proved in that case was of the opinion that offer must have been given to each of the accused individually and, therefore, compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50(1) of the Act was not made. There were other infirmities in the case also as no genuine attempt was made to get the services of independent witnesses before the search was conducted and keeping in view the afore stated infirmities the testimonies of the official witnesses were not found of sterling worth. (5). There were other infirmities in the case also as no genuine attempt was made to get the services of independent witnesses before the search was conducted and keeping in view the afore stated infirmities the testimonies of the official witnesses were not found of sterling worth. (5). In the matter at hand as soon secret information was received by PW-1 Kalyanmal it was put in black and white in Ex.P/1 which is daily diary of the police station and immediately thereafter the information was sent in writing to Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer vide Ex.P/2 through Hathi Singh Constable No. 895 and an endorsement to this effect was also found mentioned in case diary Ex.P/1 Similarly, Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer was also informed on telephone about the above information and was requested that Sub Divisional Magistrate Ajay Singh Rathore may also be sent to the police station to witness the search. Jaisalmer being a district adjoining to International Border of Pakistan and there being many cases of narcotics coming from the neighbourer country it was just thought proper to keep a person of the rank of Sub Divisional Magistrate to bring veracity in the search and seizure to be conducted thereafter. (6). The learned counsel tried to assail Ex.P/3 which is joint notice to all the three accused persons under Section 50 of the Act in which it has been specifically mentioned that in presence of Ajay Singh Rathore, SDM Jaisalmer the three accused persons were told that whether they wanted to be searched before a Magistrate or any Gazetted Officer. Upon it, all the three accused stated to PW-1 Kalyanmal Dy. S.P. that they have no objection to be searched by him in presence of SDM Jaisalmer who was present there and then. All the three accused appellants have signed at Ex.P/3. The contents of Ex.P/3 are also mentioned in seizure memo Ex.P/4 that before conducting the personal search of the accused persons they were given option that they can be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and that Kalyanmal Circle Officer was himself a Gazetted Officer and Ajay Singh Rathore SDM was also Gazetted Officer present there and if accused persons desire they could be searched in their presence also. Thereupon all the three accused persons gave consent that search of their person can be conducted by Kalyanmal Circle Officer in presence of Ajay Singh Rathore SDM. Thereupon all the three accused persons gave consent that search of their person can be conducted by Kalyanmal Circle Officer in presence of Ajay Singh Rathore SDM. Time and again the emphasis of the learned counsel of the appellants was that accused persons should have been informed that they had a right under Section 50 of the Act and option to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. None of the accused persons were informed about that right. Though Ex.P/3 does not indicate that before search any of the accused were informed about that right, yet the compliance of Section 50 of the Act was made by informing the accused appellants that they are to be searched for a narcotic material and if they desire the search can be conducted before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Thereupon the accused persons desired that they can be searched by Circle Officer in presence of SDM who was present there. Thereafter the personal search was conducted. (7). Even assuming that before search none of the accused were informed that they have a right under Section 50 of the Act yet that by itself will not vitiate the trial as per the Constitutional Bench pronouncement of State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh (3), which has subsequently been relied upon in Abdul Rahim Ibrahim Mansuri vs. State of Gujrat (4), Ahmad vs. State of Gujrat (5) and Kolutumotil vs. State of Kerala (6), among others. At the most it may cause some prejudice to the accused persons and if the above prejudice is not sufficient enough to throw the case over board the accused appellants can be convicted. (8). Object of framing Section 50 of the Act was to prevent fabrication of any evidence and false concoction of innocent persons in serious offences of N.D.P.S. Act in which the minimum sentence was 10 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Keeping in view the afore stated object in mind not only the trial court but I have also made all possible endeavours to carefully scrutinise the evidence ocular and documentary available on the file as to whether there was any possibility of false fabrication. 1,00,000/-. Keeping in view the afore stated object in mind not only the trial court but I have also made all possible endeavours to carefully scrutinise the evidence ocular and documentary available on the file as to whether there was any possibility of false fabrication. PW-1 Kalyanmal Circle Officer was vigilant enough to record the secret information so received in Ex.P/1 and also to inform S.P. Jaisalmer on telephone there and then as also to inform the S.P. Jaisalmer in writing vide Ex.P/2 before proceeding to lay a trap. Similarly, PW-1 Kalyanmal was vigilant enough to associate with himself the services of PW- 11 Ajay Singh Rathore who was SDM Jaisalmer who has been sent to the police station by the S.P. Jaisalmer as requested by PW-1 Kalyanmal. The above facts bear testimony not only in Ex.P/1 but also from the deposition of PW-1 Kalyanmal and PW-11 Ajay Singh Rathore. Both these witnesses have been cross examined at length but they could not be contradicted by any of their previous statements or any of the seizure memos nor anything substantial could be elicited affecting their testimony adversely and has been rightly held of sterling worth by the trial court. I do not find any infirmity in their statement and their testimonial value has been rightly found to be of sterling worth. (9). The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that there were material contradictions between the evidences of the prosecution witnesses interse which renders their testimony not of sterling worth yet the trial court has found them wholly reliable. Though both the learned counsel for the appellants has taken me through the prosecution evidences but inspite of extensive cross examination no material contradictions could be pointed out in any of the prosecution witnesses vis-a- vis their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Had that been so, atleast some contradictions could have been pointed out to the prosecution witnesses while they were under cross examination. Though Ex.D/1 was marked in police statement of PW-1 Kalyanmal yet no portion of it was confronted to him. The solitary omission pointed out was that in Ex.D/1 it has not been written that seizure memo was prepared at the site. Though Ex.D/1 was marked in police statement of PW-1 Kalyanmal yet no portion of it was confronted to him. The solitary omission pointed out was that in Ex.D/1 it has not been written that seizure memo was prepared at the site. Except that nothing was pointed out in cross examination of this witness that either he has exaggerated his version in the court or he has deposed anything contradictory from his previous statement. (10). Similar is the case with PW-2 Narpatdan whose police statement Ex.D/2 has been confronted only to draw his attention that it does not contain that seizure memo was prepared at the site. PW-3 Ramesh was also confronted with his previous statement Ex.D/3 with para ``A to ``B wherein it has been written that on 1.4.1999 at 3.45 P.M. he was sitting on Hanuman Crossing at a tea shop and was taking tea. The above fact has been denied by this witness during the trial. The learned counsel could not indicate how the above contradictions is material one affecting the veracity of this witness. Except above contradiction this witness has neither exaggerated his version in the court nor he has been confronted with any other portion. (11). PW-7 Bhanwar Singh who was Head Constable in the office of PW-1 Kalyanmal and was aiding and assisting him. He too was cross examined that in police statement Ex.D/4 it has not been mentioned that at the time the accused persons got down from the scooter there were bags in their hands nor it was written therein that when all the three persons were coming on the scooter the bags were on their sides. Except the above omissions in the previous statement Ex.D/4 no other contradiction or exaggeration was found in the statement of Bhanwar Singh also. It is not possible to observe so minutely from a distance of about 50 mtrs. that three persons who were riding on scooter were keeping some bags in their hands and, therefore, the same was not stated in police statement Ex.D/4. Even assuming that PW-7 Bhanwar Singh have made some exaggerated versions in the court, that by itself will not affect his testimony adversely unless it was found in material particular. that three persons who were riding on scooter were keeping some bags in their hands and, therefore, the same was not stated in police statement Ex.D/4. Even assuming that PW-7 Bhanwar Singh have made some exaggerated versions in the court, that by itself will not affect his testimony adversely unless it was found in material particular. It just possible that when the raiding party saw the three accused persons running away from the scooter and when they were chased and apprehended each of them was having a bag in their hands, therefore, in the court PW-7 Bhanwar Singh has stated that when they were running from the scooter they were having a bag each in their hands. Be that as it may, the trial court has rightly held this witness reliable. (12). PW-8 Pyarelal has also been confronted by his police statement Ex.D/5 because in the court statement be deposed that he brought weight and taraju on the direction of Circle Officer. The same fact was missing in Ex.D/5, therefore, he was confronted. The fact of bringing weight and taraju by Pyarelal is also mentioned in Rojnamcha Aam at serial No. 36 copy of which is Ex.P/1, therefore, even if the above fact was missing in police statement Ex.D/5 that by itself will not affect his testimonial value. (13). PW-9 Sawai Singh, Malkhana Incharge, has also been confronted by police statement Ex.D/6 because in court statement he deposed that so long as the seized articles remains in his custody in malkhana of the police station, their seals remain intact. The above fact was not found mentioned in Ex.D/6. Except the above omission of so called exaggeration nothing else was confronted or pointed out to this witness. It seems that either inadvertently Sawai Singh did not depose the above fact while recording his police statement or the same escaped the notice of the Investigating Officer. However, this solitary omission is not so material as to affect the testimonial value of this witness. (14). PW-10 Jethu Singh has also been confronted with his police statement Ex.D/6 because in the trial court he deposed that narcotics so recovered and seized from the accused persons were found charas upon smelling and testing by him. However, this fact was not found mentioned in police statement, therefore, he was confronted with the same. (14). PW-10 Jethu Singh has also been confronted with his police statement Ex.D/6 because in the trial court he deposed that narcotics so recovered and seized from the accused persons were found charas upon smelling and testing by him. However, this fact was not found mentioned in police statement, therefore, he was confronted with the same. Even assuming that PW-10 Jethu Singh may have exaggerated to some extent before the trial court that he too after smelling and examining the materials seized came to the conclusion that it was charas, that by itself will not suffice to hold him untrustworthy because not only he but many other prosecution witnesses have stated that the narcotics so recovered from the accused appellants was tested by them by smelling and examining which appeared to be charas. The above fact was got proved by the report of Forensic Science Laboratory. Therefore, this omission in the previous statement of PW-10 Jethu Singh is not of any consequence. (15). During the arguments the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the raiding party constituted 12 persons and all of them cannot be accommodated in one gypsy but all the prosecution witnesses have stated that PW-11 Ajay Singh Rathore Sub Divisional Magistrate was driving gypsy and PW-1 Kalyanmal was sitting by his side whereas four persons each were sitting on both sides seats and the remaining two persons were sitting on the back door of the gypsy. No discrepancy was pointed out in the above testimony of any of the prosecution witnesses. During the arguments also the learned counsel could not convince that a gypsy cannot accommodate 12 persons. After the apprehension of the accused appellants they were accommodated on way back in the gypsy and some members of the raiding party came on scooter which was seized at the site. I do not see any force in the above argument also. (16). Similarly, it was submitted that PW-1 Kalyanmal has stated that he alongwith police party saw the scooter from 75 yards distance and three persons were on it. At such a distance it cannot be observed minutely where the packets of the narcotics were kept by the accused appellant. I do not see any force in the above argument also. (16). Similarly, it was submitted that PW-1 Kalyanmal has stated that he alongwith police party saw the scooter from 75 yards distance and three persons were on it. At such a distance it cannot be observed minutely where the packets of the narcotics were kept by the accused appellant. The scooter was being driven by Sardar Singh, therefore, it was observed not only by PW-1 Kalyanmal but also other witnesses of the raiding party that after stopping the scooter and resting it on its stand Sardar Singh took some article from front dickey (tokri) of the scooter and when accused appellants saw the police gypsy standing. they ran helter-skelter holding their bags in their hands. There were some discrepancies in the statements of PW-1 Kalyanmal, PW-2 Narpatdan. PW-3 Ramesh, PW-7 Bhanwar Singh, PW-8 Pyarelal and PW- 11 Ajay Singh Rathore with regard to the fact that whether they could observe the bags in the hands of the accused appellants when they were riding scooter. Though these witnesses have deposed differently yet nothing substantial could be drawn out of it because it is not possible to observe so minutely from a distance of about 70 yards that three persons riding on a scooter were holding anything in their hands or not. All these witnesses have deposed in unison and consistently that when the accused appellants were running helter-skelter and when they were chased and caught by raiding party each of them was holding a bag in his right hand which upon search was found containing charas. The so called contradictions found in the statements of these witnesses were of minor nature and cannot affect the testimonial value of these witnesses. (17). The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that if the accused appellants have seen the police party it was not natural for them to have kept in hands the bags containing the charas and in every likelihood they should have thrown it on the ground. The learned trial court has rightly discarded such a plea raised before it because the Apex Court has held in a spate of pronouncements that different persons have different reactions and no cost iron or fixed pattern of natural conduct can be laid down as different persons would react in different manner in same situation. The learned trial court has rightly discarded such a plea raised before it because the Apex Court has held in a spate of pronouncements that different persons have different reactions and no cost iron or fixed pattern of natural conduct can be laid down as different persons would react in different manner in same situation. In this respect Vijay Pal Singh vs. NCT Delhi (7) and Leela Ram vs. State of Haryana (8), among others can be cited. Though the above pronouncements were with regard to the post event behaviour of the prosecution witnesses yet the analogy can stretched to the accused persons also. (18). The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that there was no purpose for coming all the three accused persons with three packets of charas to the site which was an open place on the damar road. It was for the accused appellants to have come with a specific pleas either in their statements given under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or atleast by putting suggestive questions in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. Sans it whatever was observed by the raiding party and scribed in their memos and thereafter deposed in the court on oath has to be believed as it is unless the witnesses were found untrustworthy. It was contended that all the three accused appellants were apprehended at the house of Moolchand who was resident of Baramsar. Had it been so, atleast some cross examination to the above effect should have been made to the important eye witnesses. Though a bald suggestion is found in the cross examination of PW-1 Kalyanmal that Govind Mali is selling illicit liquor behind Jain Temple which was objected to by Sardar Singh, therefore, at the instance of Govind Mali the accused appellants have been falsely implieded. The above suggestion has been denied by this witness. Had there been any substance in the above defence version, atleast the same should have been put to other prosecution witnesses in their cross examination or should have been probalised by producing some evidence ocular and documentary in defence. Even in their statements given under Section 313 Cr.P.C. neither Sardar Singh nor any of his accomplices has stated so that they have been falsely implicated because Sardar Singh objected to Govind Mali for selling illicit liquor behind a Jain Temple. Even in their statements given under Section 313 Cr.P.C. neither Sardar Singh nor any of his accomplices has stated so that they have been falsely implicated because Sardar Singh objected to Govind Mali for selling illicit liquor behind a Jain Temple. All these accused appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have stated that they were sitting at the house of Moolchand from there they have been apprehended and falsely implicated. Why shall PW-11 Ajay Singh Rathore who was Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaisalmer should be party to such a false implication and why shall PW-1 Kalyanmal, Circle Officer of the rank of R.P.S. should implicate falsely the three accused appellants without any reason. Simply because he has been put a bald suggestion in his cross examination that by itself without any corroboration from other evidence available on the file from either side cannot be believed nor it will be sufficient to throw the prosecution case over board. (19). Learned counsel for the appellants next pointed out some discrepancies in the time when seizure memo Ex.P/4 was prepared which bears that it was prepared at 5.00 P.M. However, it contains the fact that the accused appellants were arrested and their scooter was seized. Had it been so, atleast arrest memos Ex.P/7 to Ex.P/9 should not bear the time of 6.30 P.M. to 6.40 P.M. I have carefully considered this aspect of the matter also. It seems that Ex.P/4 may have started writing at 5.00 P.M. and may have been closed round about 6.30 P.M. Be that as it may, even if it has contained detailed version of the prosecution case that by itself will not affect the testimonial value of the seizure memo as also the prosecution witnesses who have proved the same in the trial court. What prejudice is caused to the accused has not been pointed out by the learned counsel. Time and again they tried to impress that this was not prepared at 5.00 P.M. There was no object to make it post timed. It is jut possible that when Ex.P/4 was scribed simultaneously Ex.P/7 to Ex.P/9 may have been scribed by any other person. The hand writing of these documents are not similar. Simply because these memos have been scribed simultaneously, that by itself will not damage the prosecution case. (20). It is jut possible that when Ex.P/4 was scribed simultaneously Ex.P/7 to Ex.P/9 may have been scribed by any other person. The hand writing of these documents are not similar. Simply because these memos have been scribed simultaneously, that by itself will not damage the prosecution case. (20). The learned trial court has rightly held the accused appellant guilty on the basis of statements of PW-1 Kalyanmal Dy S.P. as also PW-2 Narpatdan ASI, PW-7 Bhanwar Singh Head Constable, PW-8 Pyarelal Constable, PW-10 Jethu Singh Constable and PW-11 Ajay Singh Rathore Sub Divisional Magistrate. All these witnesses have been cross examined at length but could not be contradicted by their previous statements and nothing substantial could be elicited affecting their testimony adversely and has been rightly held reliable by the trial court. Simply because these were members of the raiding party their testimony cannot be thrown away unless and until by close scrutiny they were found unreliable. PW-3 Ramesh and PW-4 Kishan Singh were the independent witnesses to the occurrence out of them Kishan Singh has been declared hostile because though he admitted his signatures on the seizure memo Ex. P/3 and Ex.P/6 alongwith Ex.P/4, Ex.P/5, Ex.P/7 to Ex.P/9 and Ex.P/13 yet denied that any narcotics material was recovered from the accused appellants. It seems that he may have been persuaded from the defence side. Be that as it may, PW-3 Ramesh an independent witness has supported the prosecution witness thoroughly. He has been cross examined at length but except portion ``A to ``B of Ex.D/3 of his police state- ment nothing else could be confronted to him. It is immaterial that when he was called by the raiding party to participate in it he was taking tea at the shop or doing something else. The above contradiction was not in material particular and was of no use. (21). Similarly, PW-11 Ajay Singh Rathore who was Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaisalmer at that time has also supported the prosecution version thoroughly and could not be contradicted by his previous statements. Had there been any false implication or concoction PW-11 Ajay Singh Rathore would not have been party to it. He has called spade a spade and has been rightly held to be of sterling worth by the trial court. Had there been any false implication or concoction PW-11 Ajay Singh Rathore would not have been party to it. He has called spade a spade and has been rightly held to be of sterling worth by the trial court. The only infirmity pointed out was that he has stated that in the personal search of the accused appellants the narcotics packets were recovered. Inspite of that he has not been confronted by the police statement by the Public Prosecutor. It seems that this witness has stated so because the accused appellants were personally searched in his presence by PW-1 Kalyanmal. Nowhere in Ex.P/3 seizure memo it has been written, which bears the signature of this witness, that charas was recovered from the personal search of these accused appellants. Not only Ex.P/3 seizure memo discloses but all the members of the raiding party and examined in the trial court have deposed on oath that the bags were in the right hand of each accused which upon search was found containing charas. It was not the case of the accused appellants also that anything was recovered from their personal search. In Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana (9), the Apex Court in almost similar facts held that search and seizure of narcotics in the presence of Tehsildar who withstood the test of cross examination inspires confidence in prosecution story. (22). No other argument was advanced before me by either party. (23). Keeping in view the aforestated reappreciation and close scrutiny of evidence as also the arguments advanced before me I do not find any infirmity much less illegality in the impugned judgment and uphold the same. There is no merit in this appeal and the same stand dismissed. The accused appellants are in jail, they shall serve out the remaining part of sentence.