JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—Appellant Ian Roylance Stillman, hereinafter referred to as "the accused", is a British National. He was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of rupees one lakh. In case of default in the payment of fine, the accused is to suffer further imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved, the accused is in appeal. 2. The prosecution case was: Assistant Sub Inspector Parma Nand (PW 12) along with other Police Officers, including Head Constable Yoginder Pal (PW 3), Constable Lai Singh (PW 4), Constable Kuldip Singh and Home Guard Officials Ghanshyam and Des Raj, was on routine preventive patrol on August 28, 2000. He set up a "naka" on the National Highway-21 near "Sood Petrol Pump" at about 1.15 a.m. He had checked two vehicles, a truck and gypsy when at about 1.20 a.m., Maruti Van HP-01-0313 appeared from Kullu side. The vehicle was stopped for checking. The van was being driven by Rajesh Negi (PW 1). Bir Singh (PW 2), companion of the Driver was occupying the front seat. "Accused" was found sitting on the back seat of the van. It was found by the Police Party that accused had kept a bag by his side on the seat. Assistant Sub Inspector Parma Nand suspected that the accused may be carrying some contraband and, accordingly, after enquiring his identity, he expressed his desire to search his bag which he had kept by his side. He informed the accused that he has a right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and also asked if he was willing to give his search to the Police. The accused, vide Memorandum Exhibit PW2/ A gave it in writing that he is willing to give his search to the Police. The bag of the accused was searched and from the search, 20.300 kgms. of charas in the shape of tablets and sticks was recovered. Three samples of 25 gms. each were separately taken and sealed separately with seal T by the Investigating Officer. The remaining charas was put in the same bag which was sealed in a packet with the same seal. The specimen of the seal Ext. of charas in the shape of tablets and sticks was recovered. Three samples of 25 gms. each were separately taken and sealed separately with seal T by the Investigating Officer. The remaining charas was put in the same bag which was sealed in a packet with the same seal. The specimen of the seal Ext. PW12/A was taken and seal was handed over to Yoginder Pal (PW 3). Seizure Memo Exhibit PW2/C was prepared which was also signed by the witnesses and accused. Memo Exhibit PW2/C was sent to the Police Station, Manali, through constable Lai Singh, for registration of the case. On the basis of this Memo, First Information Report Exhibit PW8/A was recorded by Inspector-SHO Bhupinder Singh Negi (PW8). The accused was arrested and informed of the grounds of his arrest. A separate Memorandum for the articles, other than charas, recovered from the bag was prepared in terms of Exhibit PW12/C. The van was seized vide Memo Exhibit PW1/ A. Other documents, including the passport of the accused, were also taken into possession by the Police. Accused informed that he was staying at% "Dragon Guest House Manali". His room in the Guest House was searched by the Police but nothing incriminating was found. It is the case of the prosecution that the charas so recovered and sealed along with the sample packets was handed over to Bhupinder Singh SHO Police Station, Manali by Assistant Sub Inspector Parma Nand, who also sealed the same with his own seal and deposited the case property in the Malkhana for safe custody. A report was prepared by ASI Parma Nand and sent to the Superintendent of Police, Kullu, through Constable Tej Ram in compliance to the provisions of Section 57 of the Act. 3. The defence of the accused was that he has falsely been implicated. The accused set up a case that another passenger, an Israeli National, was traveling with him in the van and the incriminating bag belonged to that Israeli National. It is the case of the "accused" that when the van was stopped on the Police signal of the Police party, the Israeli National opened the door of the van and ran away with the bag. The police chased the Israeli National, was successful in retrieving the bag but the Israeli National escaped and could not be apprehended by the Police Party. The police chased the Israeli National, was successful in retrieving the bag but the Israeli National escaped and could not be apprehended by the Police Party. He is innocent and has not committed any offence. 4. We have heard Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel for the accused and Mr. M.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. J.K. Verma, Assistant Advocate General for the State. We perused the evidence on record at length with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. It may be stated at the outset that the accused has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge on the strength of the evidence of the Police Officers and the report of the Chemical Examiner. The other two witnesses, namely, the Driver of the Van Rajesh Negi (PW1) and his companion sitting on the front seat namely Bir Singh (PW 2) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. 6. Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant argued with considerable tenacity and force that the evidence on which the conviction is founded does not inspire confidence. It is the contention of Mr. Gupta that the prosecution has failed to link the accused with the bag from which charas was recovered. Mr. Gupta has also given brief note of the arguments which we have placed on record. Several contentions were raised by Mr. Gupta. He contended: (a) Two independent witnesses, namely, the Driver of the van and his companion did not support the prosecution case. The defence is proved by these two witnesses who admittedly were the witnesses to the entire search; (b) Two other witnesses, Des Raj and Ghanshyam, the Home Guard personnel, were not examined and adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution and another important witness Ravi Kumar was given up by the prosecution though he was a material witness; (c) The Investigating Officer has been less than fair in the investigation of this case. He implicated the accused as the Israeli National who was in possession of this charas fled away despite heavy police force and to save ignonomity, the accused was involved with the search which was in possession of the Israeli National; (d) The seizure Memo and other documents were prepared by the Investigating Officer in the Police Station and not on the spot and in one of the documents, the signatures of the accused have been forged which renders the entire prosecution suspect; (e) There are material contradictions in the evidence of various witnesses which renders the prosecution story improbable and unworthy of credence; (f) The spot map prepared by the Investigating Officer shows the position of the Civil Hospital, Manali on the right hand side, whereas, the Civil Hospital Manali is on the left side of the road; (g) The total charas recovered was 20 kgs. and 300 grams out of which 75 grams was taken out for sample and the remaining charas left was 20 kg. and 225 grams. However, the charas deposited in the malkhana as per entry in the Malkhana Register was 20 kg. and 300 gms. which clouds the prosecution story; (h) Number of the First Information Report on the top of the documents including NCB form indicate that the documents were prepared at a later stage than* stated by the Investigating Officer; (i) There was violation of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) of the Act inasmuch as search of the room of the hotel occupied by the accused was carried without following the procedure prescribed under these provisions; (j) The provisions of Section 57 of the Act were not complied with. The report was not sent to the Superior Officer within 48 hours; (k) The Investigating Officer had a prior information about the charas being transported in the van and, therefore, provisions of Section 42 ought to have been complied by the Investigating Officer; (l) Accused is a deaf from child-hood and he therefore, did not understand the proceedings which took place in Hindi which has seriously prejudiced the trial of the accused; (m) The Investigating Officer who is also a complainant, after search and recovery of the incriminating material, continued to investigate the case which raises serious doubts about the impartiality of the investigation. 7. 7. We may notice at the outset that this is a case of recovery of the contraband, namely, "charas" by a preventive party who were engaged in the routine checking of the vehicles after having put a "naka" near "Sood Petrol Pump". It is not a case of any prior information that any contraband was being taken or transported in the Maruti van in which the accused was traveling and from which contraband was recovered. It is true that Rajesh Negi (PW 1) and his companion sitting on the front seat of the van, namely, Bir Singh (PW2) did not support the prosecution case and rather took pain to support the defence version regarding the recovery of the charas. The sub-startum of the case of the prosecution, in our view, is proved and remain unblemished, by the evidence of the other witnesses who are police officers. 8. It is the evidence of Head Constable Yoginder Pal (PW3) that on August 28, 2001, he along with Assistant Sub Inspector Parma Nand, constables Lai Singh and Kuldip Kumar, Home Guard Officials Desh Raj and Ghanshyam Dass, was on routine petrol and "naka" near Sood Petrol Pump, Manali. It is his evidence that at about 1.20 a.m. taxi HP-01-0313 appeared from Kullu side. The taxi was stopped. One person was sitting on the front seat on the side of the Driver, the back seat was occupied by foreign national accused and had a bag by his side on the seat. Assistant Sub Inspector Parma Nand enquired about the identity of the accused, who gave his name as "Ian Roylance Stillman" from Britain. His passport was checked. The documents of the vehicles were also checked. Investigating Officer then asked for the consent of the accused for the search of the bag with option .to have the bag searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The (accused consented to be a searched by the Police and a Memorandum Exhibit »PW2/A was accordingly prepared: The bag on search wasv found to contain charas which was weighed and found to be 20 kgms and 300 gms. Three (samples of 25 grams each were drawn from the charas so recovered. The iremaining charas was packed and sealed in the same bag. He also proved |the Memorandum of consent and recovery Exhibit PW2/A and PW2/C, Respectively. Three (samples of 25 grams each were drawn from the charas so recovered. The iremaining charas was packed and sealed in the same bag. He also proved |the Memorandum of consent and recovery Exhibit PW2/A and PW2/C, Respectively. It is his evidence that the packets were sealed with seal T Which was given to him. NCB forms, stated this witness, was filled in triplicate. The documents of the vehicle were also taken into possession vide Memorandum Exhibit PW1/A. The accused was arrested and informed about the grounds of his arrest. Accused expressed his desire that his friend "Krishna" of Jari should be informed about his arrest who was accordingly informed. He is supported by Constable Lai Singh (PW4). This witness corroborated the evidence of Head Constable Yoginder Pal in all material aspects and stated that the vehicle-Maruti Van No. HP-01-0313 was stopped by the Police Party near the Petrol Pump. The back seat of the van was occupied by the accused. Front seat was occupied by the companion of the Driver. The person sitting on the back seat was a foreigner who had by his side a green colour bag. On inquiry, accused disclosed his identity. The Investigating Officer obtained the consent of the accused for the search of the bag vide Memo Exhibit PW2/A. It is his evidence that on search, charas was found in the shape of sticks and tablets in the bag. The recovered charas was weighed and found to be 20 kg. and 300 grams. Three samples of 25 grams each were separately taken and sealed. The remaining charas was also seized. To similar effect is the evidence of the Investigating Officer ASI Parma Nand (PW 12). He fully supported the prosecution version. 9. So far Rajesh Negi (PW 1) and Bir Singh (PW 2), Driver of the Van and his companion are concerned; they did not support the prosecution as noticed earlier. 10. Rajesh Negi, appearing as PW 1 stated that his taxi was attached with Manikaran Taxi Union. According to him, this taxi was booked at Jari through Ravi, a clerk of the Taxi Union, for Manali. The occupant of the Taxi, according to him, was a Israeli National with long hairs and accused was not that person. It is his evidence that Bir Singh, his friend, accompanied him in the taxi who was sitting in the front seat. The occupant of the Taxi, according to him, was a Israeli National with long hairs and accused was not that person. It is his evidence that Bir Singh, his friend, accompanied him in the taxi who was sitting in the front seat. The back seat was occupied by that "foreigner". He was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In cross-examination, he stated that his taxi* was hired by a foreigner for Manali. He got a slip from the Booking Clerk Ravi and started from Mani Karan at 8.30 p.m. That foreigner was having two bags which he kept on the back seat. Then improved and said that he had only one bag. It is his evidence that they reached Manali Barrier at about 10.00 p.m. The taxi was signaled to be stopped by the Police. Police checked his vehicle. He denied the suggestion that the foreigner gave his name as "Ian Roylance Stillman". He denied that option was given to the foreign national for getting his bag searched in the presence of the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer. He also denied that the foreigner opted to be searched by the Police. He denied the suggestion that the bag when searched was found to contain charas. However, at a later stage of his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he stated that when he reached Hathi-Than carrying that Israeli national, his vehicle was stopped in front of Y.M. Hospital by an Indian and on inquiry, he informed the Indian that he was going to Manali. The Indian requested him to take a foreigner to Manali on payment of rupees 200-300. Then that Indian talked to the foreigner sitting on the back seat and thereafter, that foreigner boarded his taxi and sat on the back seat along with the foreigner who had hired the taxi. He identified the accused to be the person who boarded the taxi at Hati-Than. It is further evidence that his vehicle was stopped at Manali. He admitted that documents of the vehicle as well as the Van were taken into possession by the Police because of the recovery of the charas. He also admitted that there was a bag in the van. But according to him, he did not see the charas in the bag. In the cross-examination by the accused, he stated that Israeli National was sitting behind him in the back seat. He also admitted that there was a bag in the van. But according to him, he did not see the charas in the bag. In the cross-examination by the accused, he stated that Israeli National was sitting behind him in the back seat. The big bag belonged to the Israeli National. The vehicle was stopped at Manali by the Police, the said Israeli National opened the door and ran away with the bag. It is his evidence that Israeli National was chased by the Police Officials but he managed to escape after scuffle with the Police leaving behind the bag. He went on to state that the Police enquired from him about the identity of the Israeli National but he could not disclose his identity and thereafter, he and the accused were taken to the Police Station. Police enquired from the accused about the identity of the other person sitting with him who had ran away. Bir Singh (PW2), the companion of PW1, supported the version of the Driver of the van Rajesh Negi. He was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He admitted that receipt of the fare was issued to the passengers who books taxi. He maintained that the bag which was searched belonged to the Israeli National. According to him, the charas was not weighed in his presence. He also denied that any samples were drawn from the charas recovered in his presence. In cross-examination by the accused, he stated that accused did not have any bag when he boarded the taxi at Hathi-Than. He also admitted the suggestion that accused limped while walking. He admitted the suggestion of the accused that at Manali when the vehicle was stopped by the Police, Israeli National opened the door and ran away with the bag. The Israeli National was chased by the Police and after some time, police came with the bag informing that the man managed to fled away. It is his evidence that his signatures on various Memorandums were taken on the next day. 11. It is difficult to believe the version given by these two witnesses. It is incredible that a person can run away with a load of more than 20 kg. with police party chasing him and could escape in scuffle with the police. 12. It is his evidence that his signatures on various Memorandums were taken on the next day. 11. It is difficult to believe the version given by these two witnesses. It is incredible that a person can run away with a load of more than 20 kg. with police party chasing him and could escape in scuffle with the police. 12. It is now well settled that when a witness who has been called by the prosecution is permitted to be cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution, such a witness loses credibility and cannot be relied upon by the defence. We find support for the view we have taken from the various authorities of the Apex Court. In Jagir Singh v. The State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1400, the Apex Court observed: "It is now well settled that when a witness, who has been called by the prosecution, is permitted to be cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution, the result of that course being adopted is to discredit this witness altogether and not merely to get rid of a part of his testimony". (Emphasis supplied) The question which arises for our consideration is whether the testimony of the Police Officers associated with the Preventive Naka and search can be believed in the face of the testimony of Rajesh Negi and Bir Singh. It is no longer res integra evidence of the Police Officers cannot be rejected simply because they were members of the Preventive or Raiding party. Their testimony cannot be discarded, in our view, only for the reason that they happen to be police officers, particularly, if no hostility or animus is attributable to the Police Officers concerned. We are supported in our view by the observations of the Apex Court in Nathusingh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2783. Their Lordships in para 2 of the judgment observed: "Concurrent findings of fact conclude the case against the petitioner so far as his possession of unlicensed cartridges on the date and the time and place given in the charge are concerned. The fact that the two witnesses called from amongst the members of the public, namely, Raghunathsingh (PW 1) and Gambhirsingh Tomar (PW 2), had turned hostile was considered by the High Court and the Courts below. The fact that the two witnesses called from amongst the members of the public, namely, Raghunathsingh (PW 1) and Gambhirsingh Tomar (PW 2), had turned hostile was considered by the High Court and the Courts below. They had held that the two prosecution witnesses who had turned hostile could not be relied upon.....Their evidence could not destroy the prosecution case or make it doubtful, The prosecution case is fully supported by Mahadevsingh (PW 5), and Umashankar (PW 6), who are police officers. The mere fact that they are police officers was not enough to discard their evidence. No reason was shown for their hostility to the appellant. (Emphasis supplied) 13. In State of Kerala v. MM. Mathew and another, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1571, a contention was raised that evidence of the Officers constituting the Inspecting Party is highly interested because they wanted the accused to be convicted. The Apex Court held that such a presumption runs counter to the well recognized principle that prima facie public servants must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of their case. 14. Again in Samaalana Abdulla v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 427, independent witnesses from the illaqua were not associated. Their Lordships observed : “....It cannot therefore be said that the investigation was not fair and, therefore, independent corporation was necessary. As nothing was found from the house of Rayna Sahab, no complaint was lodged against him. PI Dwivedi had no reason to falsely involve the appellant if really no map was called from his house. Again their evidence cannot be rejected only on the ground that they are police witnesses and were members of the raiding party. Their evidence receives corroboration from the Panchnama (Ext. P24)." (Emphasis supplied) 15. In Betal Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2770, accused fired at the deceased Police Head Constable. The evidence given by the constable present at the time of incident was believed as it was found that he had no axe to grind against the accused. 16. P24)." (Emphasis supplied) 15. In Betal Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2770, accused fired at the deceased Police Head Constable. The evidence given by the constable present at the time of incident was believed as it was found that he had no axe to grind against the accused. 16. In Akmal Ahmad v. State of Delhi, (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 337, appellant was arrested with loaded revolver and two passports one issued by the Indian authorities showing his name as "K.M. Akmal Ahmad", and the other, by Pakistani authorities showing his name as "S.M. Irfan". He was convicted by the Designated Court of offences under Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 and under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. It was contended before the Apex Court that the evidence of the Police Officers about the possession of the revolver by the appellant was not corroborated by any independent witness. In this context. Their Lordships observed : ".....It is true that the evidence of PW8 Sub-Inspector of Police is not supported by any witness other than police personnel. It is now well settled that the evidence of search or seizure made by the police will not become vitiated solely for the reason that the evidence is not supported by any independent witness." (Emphasis supplied) 17. We may now assess the probative value of the evidence of the hostile witnesses. The testimony of PW1 Rajesh Negi, the driver of the Van and Bir Singh (PW2), the companion of the Driver sitting in the van is of no assistance to the accused as they exhibited hostile animus to the prosecution case. The prosecution is not bound by the evidence of such witnesses. It is to be noticed that Memorandum of the recovery of charas from the bag of the accused was prepared in the presence of both these witnesses and Bir Singh had signed this Memorandum (Ext. PW2/C) as a witness. Bir Singh admitted in his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor that he had signed the Memo Ext. PW2/C It was also not in dispute either before us or before the trial Court that accused was a passenger in the van when it was intercepted, and stopped by the Police. PW2/C) as a witness. Bir Singh admitted in his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor that he had signed the Memo Ext. PW2/C It was also not in dispute either before us or before the trial Court that accused was a passenger in the van when it was intercepted, and stopped by the Police. It is also not in dispute that the bag containing charas was lying on the seat which was occupied by the accused and on search, charas was recovered from this bag. The defence case is that this bag belonged to an Israeli National who managed to escape. Bir Singh is also signatory to the consent Memo Exhibit PW2/A, Memo of information regarding the arrest of the accused Exhibit PW2/D. The witness has not explained his signatures on these Memorandums. Though Bir Singh in the cross-examination by the accused stated that his signatures were taken by force and at the pain of threat of arrest. Bir Singh never made any complaint in this regard to either any superior Police Officer or the Magistrate or any one else. 18. In Keshoram Bora v. State of Assam, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1096, the question of credibility of the prosecution witness who turned hostile arose. In this context, the learned Judges observed : ".....While it is true that merely because a witness is declared hostile, his evidence cannot be rejected on that ground alone, it is equally well settled that once a prosecution witness is declared hostile, the prosecution clearly exhibits its intention not to rely on the evidence of such a witness. In these circumstances, therefore, the Sessions Judge was not at all justified in treating the version given by PW5 and PW7 as the version of the prosecution itself." (Emphasis ours) 19. This principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in Parveen v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 365, and it was held that a testimony of a witness declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution cannot be relied on by the defence. Their Lordships observed: "......Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel strongly relied upon the evidence of other witnesses of facts, ignoring the fact that they have been declared hostile and were cross examined by the defence (sic prosecution), no reliance whatsoever could be placed on such evidence." (Emphasis supplied) 20. Their Lordships observed: "......Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel strongly relied upon the evidence of other witnesses of facts, ignoring the fact that they have been declared hostile and were cross examined by the defence (sic prosecution), no reliance whatsoever could be placed on such evidence." (Emphasis supplied) 20. The question now is whether the evidence of the Police Officers can be relied upon to convict the accused. We have critically reappraised the entire evidence of the witnesses to the search leading to the recovery of charas and find that their evidence has not been shaken or discredited in the cross-examination. The sub-startum of the prosecution in spite of lengthy cross-examination of these witnesses remains intact. 21. The first contention of Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel for the accused, in so far as the reliability of the police witnesses is concerned, was that the Investigating Officer has not been fair in the conduct of the investigation. This cast doubt on the testimony of the Police witnesses. He drew our attention to Memo Ex. PW2/C which is in Hindi and is allegedly signed by the accused. The contention was that the seizure Memo was in Hindi which language accused did not know. The "Accused" is deaf and therefore the contents of the Memorandum could not have been explained to him. The signatures on this Memorandum, urged Mr. Gupta, are different from the other signatures and apparently, have been forged by the Investigating Officer or some other police official. It is true that seizure memo regarding the recovery of the charas from the bag is in Hindi. It is equally true that it purports to have been signed by the accused. However, it is not for us to compare, in this appeal, the signatures of the accused in various Memorandums when such plea was not raised before the trial Court. This Memo was proved by Head Constable Yoginder Pal (PW 3). It was not put to this witness that the signatures of the accused on this Memorandum were forged or he did not sign the Memorandum. It is the categorical statement of the Investigating Officer (PW 12) Assistant Sub Inspector Parma Nand that after the recovery of the charas from the bag, it was weighed and three samples of 25 gms. each were separately taken and sealed. It is the categorical statement of the Investigating Officer (PW 12) Assistant Sub Inspector Parma Nand that after the recovery of the charas from the bag, it was weighed and three samples of 25 gms. each were separately taken and sealed. The remaining charas was also sealed and Memorandum/Panchnama Exhibit PW2/C was prepared which was signed by the accused and other witnesses. He has not been cross-examined by the accused on this aspect of the case. It is not even suggested to this witness that this Panchnama was not signed by the accused or his signatures have been forged. In fact this part of the testimony has been accepted by the accused. 22. This apart, it was not necessary for the Investigating Officer to have taken the signatures of the accused on the seizure Memo or Panchnama. Therefore the question whether or not this Memo was signed by the accused is of no material significance. As submitted by the learned Deputy Advocate General, the accused was represented by a counsel of his choice. At no point of time, any objection was raised by the counsel that the signatures of the accused were forged or his signatures were obtained without disclosing to him the contents of the seizure Memo. This question was not raised before the trial Court at any point of time during the course of trial. The accused, on the other hand suggested to the Investigating Officer (PW 12) in his cross-examination that the signatures on the Memo Exhibit PW2/ A to PW2/D, which includes seizure Memo Ext. PW2/C, were obtained forcibly in the Police Station meaning thereby that though the Memo in question bears the signatures of the accused but such signatures were taken forcibly in the Police Station. In these circumstances, in our view, it is not open to the accused to say in appeal that this particular Memorandum did not contain his signatures and his signatures were forged or for that reason, investigation was unfair. 23. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the accused then contended that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He specifically referred to the testimony of Head Constable Yoginder Pal (PW 3) who stated that the Memo Exhibit PW2/A, PW2/C and PW2/ D were scribed by Parma Nand, whereas, the Investigating Officer Assistant Sub Inspector Parma Nand (PW 12) stated that these documents were scribed by Yoginder Pal. He specifically referred to the testimony of Head Constable Yoginder Pal (PW 3) who stated that the Memo Exhibit PW2/A, PW2/C and PW2/ D were scribed by Parma Nand, whereas, the Investigating Officer Assistant Sub Inspector Parma Nand (PW 12) stated that these documents were scribed by Yoginder Pal. He also draw our attention to the statement of Parma Nand Assistant Sub Inspector that NCB form was got filled from Lai Singh whereas, Lai Singh appearing as PW 4 stated that he did not fill the NCB form as it was not filled in his presence. This, according to Mr. Deepak Gupta, dents the prosecution case and the testimony of the Investigating Officer and his evidence becomes doubtful. 24. Learned Deputy Advocate General, on the other hand, countered that the accused having not raised these points before the trial Court, cannot be permitted to raise them in appeal. 25. It is true that the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination stated that the Memo Exhibit PW2/A and Exhibit PW2/D were got scribed by him from Yoginder Pal. It is also true that Yoginder Pal appearing as PW 3 in his cross-examination had stated that Memo. Exhibit PW2/A and PW2/D were scribed by Parma Nand Investigating Officer but then this is not such a contradiction which renders the evidence of Head Constable Yoginder Pal or the Investigating Officer Parma Nand unworthy of reliance. Minor contradictions which do not go to the root of the case are bound to occur with the passage of time. Such variations do not affect the credibility of the witnesses when the witnesses are consistent in substance. Memorandum Exhibit PW2/A, consent letter, is not only signed by the accused but also contain the consent of the accused in his own hand. The accused in the consent Memo Exhibit PW2/A record: "I want to give my permission for personal search by the present Police". Similarly, in Memo Exhibit PW2/ D, the accused recorded: "I have been informed about my arrest and I want to inform my friend Mr. Krishna at Telephone No. 0190273203 regarding my arrest". In the circumstances, the question whether these documents were scribed by Investigating Officer himself or he got them scribed by some one else is not of any material significance. Such contradiction, in our opinion, will not render the evidence of these witnesses unacceptable. We may also refer to the contention of Mr. Krishna at Telephone No. 0190273203 regarding my arrest". In the circumstances, the question whether these documents were scribed by Investigating Officer himself or he got them scribed by some one else is not of any material significance. Such contradiction, in our opinion, will not render the evidence of these witnesses unacceptable. We may also refer to the contention of Mr. Deepak Gupta that though the Investigating Officer, ASI Parma Nand (PW 12) stated that NCB form was got filled by him from Constable Lai Singh (PW 4) but Constable Lai Singh denied and stated that he did not fill the NCB form. We have perused the testimony of Constable Lai Singh. We do not find any such statement in the testimony of Lai Singh. He did not say that the NCB form was not filled by him. The NCB form was never put to this witness. What he stated in cross-examination was "when I.O. was busy on the spot I went with ruka to the Police Station. By that time, Memo pertaining to consent, search of I.O. and recovery Memo were already prepared. Remaining papers in my view might have been prepared after my going with ruka". This statement cannot be interpreted or stretched to mean that NCB form was not got filled from Lai Singh by the Investigating Officer, particularly when Lai Singh was not confronted with the NCB form. 26. Mr. Gupta then assailed the evidence of th^ Police Officers on the ground that there are contradictions regarding the timings of the search. The contention was that according to the prosecution case, the search took place at about 1.20 a.m. on August 28, 2000 but the two witnesses, namely, Rajesh Negi (PW 1), the Driver of the van and his companion Bir Singh (PW 2) stated that, the search took place at about 10.00 p.m. on August 27, 2000. We have already pointed out that evidence of Rajesh Negi and Bir Singh is of no assistance to the defence. He also submitted that the prosecution version cannot be believed as according to the Investigating Officer that entire process of investigation was completed within 45 minutes which included the scribing of the documents and the search of the accused which on the face of it is incredible. We are not impressed. He also submitted that the prosecution version cannot be believed as according to the Investigating Officer that entire process of investigation was completed within 45 minutes which included the scribing of the documents and the search of the accused which on the face of it is incredible. We are not impressed. It is the admitted position that van was stopped and search of the van was conducted by the police party Though the defence version is that the bag containing contraband belonged to an Israeli National who fled away with the bag. Police chased that person. There was a scuffle between the Police personnel and that Israeli National. The Israeli National was successful in escaping from the police though the police could retrieve the bag. Whether the search took 25 minutes or one hour, is not of such a significance which goes to the root of the irase. In any case, the submission is without any foundation. The fact is that in his cross-examination, the Investigating Officer has categorically stated that he remained on the spot till 4.00 a.m. to complete the investigation. In his own words. "I remained on the spot till 4.00 a.m. to complete the investigation" which means that investigation was completed in about two and half hours. 27. Mr. Deepak Gupta then referred to the spot map prepared by the Investigating Officer Exhibit PW12/F. In this spot map, pointed out Mr. Gupta, Civil Hospital Manali is shown on the right side of the road while going from Manali to Kullu whereas, in fact it is on the left side of the road which leads to the conclusion that spot map was not prepared on the spot which shows that the prosecution evidence is unreliable. We do not agree. The Investigating Officer appearing as PW 12 admitted that the civil hospital is on the left side of the road while going from Manali to Kullu and not on the right side as shown in the spot map. A mistake in the preparation of the spot map showing petrol pump towards right side instead of left side in our view, does not render the search and subsequent recovery of the charas illegal nor does this apparent mistake renders the testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW 12), as supported by the prosecution witnesses, unworthy of reliance. 28. Mr. A mistake in the preparation of the spot map showing petrol pump towards right side instead of left side in our view, does not render the search and subsequent recovery of the charas illegal nor does this apparent mistake renders the testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW 12), as supported by the prosecution witnesses, unworthy of reliance. 28. Mr. Gupta also pointed out some other contradictions, such as, (a) according to the Investigating Officer, ruka was sent at about 1.45 a.m., whereas, as per the independent witnesses, the documents were got signed from them on the next day at about 10.00 a.m. (b) according to PW Lai Singh the charas was weighed in lots of 1 kgms. but the Investigating Officer stated that the charas was weighed in the lots of one or 1.5 kgms. The other infirmity pointed out by Mr. Gupta was that the Investigating Officer could not state in his cross-examination the form in which the consent of the accused was taken. Inspite the Investigating Officer having read the consent Memo Exhibit PW2/A, he was unable to give the contents. The perusal of the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW 12) shows that he stated in the cross-examination, that he could not tell the words which were used by him while asking for the option of the accused for his search and that he could tell those words after refreshing his Memory. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer was-given Memo Exhibit PW2/A to read. Then he told the Court that he could tell verbally what was asked by him about the consent from the accused. The I.O. then gave the version in English which exactly were not the words used in the consent Memo Exhibit PW2/ A. The Investigating Officer, to our view, was not expected to Memorize the exact words which were used in the consent Memo. 29. Mr. Gupta also brought to our notice that the total charas recovered was 20 kg. and 300 grams and after drawing three samples of 25 grams each, the remaining charas would, weigh 20 kg. and 225 grams, but according to the Malkhana Register (Exhibit PW7/A), 20 kg. and 300 grams of charas was deposited on August 28, 2000. This would show that the prosecution story is not true as the extra 75 grams of charas has not been explained. We are afraid, the argument is untenable. and 225 grams, but according to the Malkhana Register (Exhibit PW7/A), 20 kg. and 300 grams of charas was deposited on August 28, 2000. This would show that the prosecution story is not true as the extra 75 grams of charas has not been explained. We are afraid, the argument is untenable. Head Constable Dola Ram (PW 7) was Moharrar Head Constable at Police Station, Manali at the relevant time. It is his evidence that four sealed parcels containing charas sealed with seal T and X along with sample seal and NCB form were deposited with him in the Malkhana. He made the entry of the case property in the register. He was not even asked about the weight of the charas in the cross-examination. What was suggested to him was that no case property was deposited with him by the Station House Officer. We have perused the entry, copy of which is Exhibit PW7/A, in the Malkhana Register. What it records is that one packet stated to contain 20 kg. and 300 grams of charas along with NCB form was deposited. This does not mean that the charas in the packet in fact weighed 20 kg. and 300 grams. It is not the case of the accused that the case property or the charas was substituted. The recovery is not disputed by the accused. What the defence is that the bag from which the recovery was made, did not belong to him. The charas was not only sealed by the Investigating Officer with his seal but it was also sealed by the SHO (PW 8). There is nothing on the record to suggest that the seals were tampered with. It is not even the suggestion of the accused. The error in recording that the "charas was stated to be 20 kg. and 300 grams," is innocuous. 30. Mr. Gupta then contended that number of the First Information Report recorded in the NCB form is in the same pen and ink and the same handwriting as the rest of the documents which would show that the documents were prepared at a later stage. We are afraid; the contention is fallacious and does not stand scrutiny. The NCB form has been filled in black ink. The FIR number is also recorded in the black ink, whereas, the other documents are in blue ink. We are afraid; the contention is fallacious and does not stand scrutiny. The NCB form has been filled in black ink. The FIR number is also recorded in the black ink, whereas, the other documents are in blue ink. The FIR number was available to the Investigating Officer after the FIR was registered on the ruka sent by him to the Police Station which admittedly is located close by to the place where the van was searched and recovery made as is apparent from the FIR Exhibit PW 8/A itself which records the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station to be 250 mtrs. 31. Mr. Gupta pointed out that the First Information Report was recorded at 2.00 a.m. but the same was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Manali at 2.30 p.m. which in turn, would show that the documents were prepared by the Police Station at 10.00 a.m. and not on the spot as alleged by the Prosecution. The argument is again without any substance. Simply because the FIR was received by the Magistrate at 12.30 p.m. would not show that the documents were prepared at 10.00 a.m. on that date and not on the spot particularly when it is not disputed in the cross-examination of the witnesses that the, FIR was in fact recorded at 2.00 a.m. on that date. 32. Mr. Gupta then referred to the testimony of Head Constable Yoginder Pal who stated that the seal affixed by the Investigating Officer was made of lead but Lai Singh stated that it was of aluminium type. We do not see any contradiction. What Lai Singh stated was that it was aluminium type and not that it was made of aluminium lead. 33. Mr. Deepak Gupta then referred to the testimony of Mr. B.S. Negi, Station House Officer, Police Station Manali (PW 8) who stated that ASI Parma Nand at about 6.35 a.m. produced before him three samples and one sealed packet sealed with sealT and he re-sealed all these packets with nis seal X. He also affixed his seal on the NCB form and thereafter deposited the case property with MHC. In cross-examination he stated that he was alone at the time of re-sealing "but Investigating Officer was there". In cross-examination he stated that he was alone at the time of re-sealing "but Investigating Officer was there". The Investigating Officer admitted that packets were resealed by the Station House Officer with seal X. The Station House Officer admits the presence of the Investigating Officer at that time and, therefore, the Investigating Officer could have seen the process of the sealing of the packets by the SHO Shri B.S. Negi. The other flaw pointed out by Mr. Gupta was that the naka was put near the Police Station and therefore, there was no reason for the Investigating Officer to carry the scale and weights unless he had prior information about the charas being carried in the van yet he did not comply with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act which provides for the recording of such information in writing. The trial of the accused in this view of the matter is vitiated. The argument is noticed to be rejected. The Investigating Officer is categorical that he had no prior information. The analysis of the evidence shows that the Police were on routine preventive checking and had put a naka near the "Sood Petrol Pump" and there was no prior information. 34. Learned Deputy Advocate General pointed out that it is a common knowledge that there is large scale drug trafficking in Kullu and Manali and the Investigating Officer(s) in that area always carry the weighing scale and weights in their investigation kit. This apart, we find that it was not suggested to the Investigating Officer that he had any prior information about the contraband being carried in the van. In fact, in his cross-examination, he clearly stated that "I had no prior information about carrying of the contraband by the accused". 35. All the contradictions and flaws pointed out by the learned Counsel by no stretch can be said to be such as to render the prosecution case unbelievable nor the testimony of the Police witnesses is dented by the minor contradictions discussed above. Minor contradictions are bound to occur with the passage of time. In State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 617, the Apex Court pointed out that minor variation between what is stated in the examination-in-chief on a particular point and cross-examination would not affect the credibility of the witness if the witness is consistent in his substance. 36. In State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 617, the Apex Court pointed out that minor variation between what is stated in the examination-in-chief on a particular point and cross-examination would not affect the credibility of the witness if the witness is consistent in his substance. 36. The trial Court observed the demeanour of the witnesses. We have reviewed the evidence in minute detail. We do not see any reason to discard the prosecution evidence. There is no good ground to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 37. There was no reason for the Investigating Officer to have falsely implicated the accused letting the-real culprit escape. Mr. Gupta vehemently urged that the accused was implicated by the Police to save themselves from ignonimity for having not been able to apprehend the culprit. The argument is misplaced and cannot be accepted. We asked Mr. Gupta that how could the accused know that the person, if at all one was traveling with him, was Israeli National particularly when the accused according to defence was deaf. Mr. Gupta was not able to reply to our query. Otherwise also, it was not difficult for the police to have apprehended that Israeli National if there was one as the accused would have us believe. 38. We are not unmindful of the fact that under the Registration of Foreigner Rules, 1939, all foreigners are required to be registered at the place(s) of their stay in India and, therefore, the Police would know the whereabouts of all the foreigners including all Israeli Nationals, who were staying in the District of Kullu. 39. In State of U.P. v. MX. Anthony, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 48, the Apex Court ruled that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach of the Court should be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth and if such an impression is formed, then minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case would not entail the rejection of the evidence. Their Lordships in para 10 of the judgment observed: "10. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Their Lordships in para 10 of the judgment observed: "10. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once the impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, draw-backs and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate Court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the record of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross-examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer. Having examined the evidence of this witness, a friend and well-wisher of the family carefully giving due weight to the comments made by the learned Counsel for the respondent and the reason assigned to by the High Court for rejecting his evidence simultaneously keeping in view the appreciation of the evidence of this witness by the trial Court, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was in error in rejecting the testimony of witness Nair whose evidence appears to us trustworthy and credible." (Emphasis supplied) 40. We have already observed that in the present case, after critical examination of the evidence on record, as it emerged from the cross-examination of the witnesses, it cannot be said that substratum of the case of the prosecution is dented or the evidence of the Police Officers is unacceptable. The minor discrepancies and the error in preparing the spot map pointed out by the learned Counsel, as discussed above, in our view, do not warrant the rejection of the evidence on which conviction was recorded by the learned trial Court particularly when the trial Court had the benefit of observing the demenour of the witnesses. As pointed out by the learned Judges in "M. K. Anthony" even an honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Testing the evidence on record on probability factor, the prosecution, in our view, has been able to prove the case against the accused. Lord Moulton in Hawkins v. Powells Coal Co. Ltd., L.R. (1911) 1 K.B. 988 at page 995, pointed out: "......Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration because that is impossible. It means such evidence as would include a reasonable man to come a conclusion". 41. Considering the entire evidence on record, we are satisfied that the prosecution has been successful in proving that the accused was in possession of the charas which was recovered from the bag. 42. Mr. Deepak Gupta, we may record contended that the Investigating Officer did not comply with the provisions of Section 57 of the Act which renders the prosecution suspect. Section 57 of the Act envisages that whenever any arrest or seizure is made under the Act, the person making such arrest or seizure shall, within 48 hours, next after such arrest or seizure shall make a report about the same to his immediate superior official. The Investigating Officer stated that he sent the special report to the Superintendent of Police, Kullu, on August 29, 2000 through Constable Teja Ram. The Investigating Officer stated that he sent the special report to the Superintendent of Police, Kullu, on August 29, 2000 through Constable Teja Ram. Constable Teja Ram (PW 9) stated that the special report was handed over to him by the Investigating Officer ASI Parma Nand on August 29, 2000 which he took to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Kullu on the same day ASI Lai Singh (PW 11) proved the receipt of the Special Report in the Office of the Superintendent of Police Kullu. It is his evidence that he was posted as Reader to the Superintendent of Police, Kullu at the relevant time and on August 29, 2000, constable Teja Ram handed over to him special report of the case at 12.00 noon which he produced before the Additional Superintendent of Police on August 30, 2000. He clarified that report could not be given to higher Officer(s) as neither the Additional Superintendent of Police nor the Superintendent of Police were present in the office on August 29, 2000. It is his evidence that he made entry at Sr. No. 41 of the concerned register. He produced the original register and the original report in the Court. Copy of the Special Report is Exhibit PW11/A. There is nothing in the cross-examination to disbelieve this witness. In our view, it is proved that the report was sent by the Investigating Officer to the Superintendent of Police at Manali within 48 hours. 43. Mr. Deepak Gupta then submitted that a Deputy Superintendent of Police is posted at Manali and would be the immediate superior Officer of ASI Parma Nand and, therefore, he could have,sent that report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Manali. There is nothing on the record to show that Deputy Superintendent of Police at Manali was factually in position at the relevant time. What PW 11, in his cross-examination, stated was that there is a post of Deputy Superintendent of Police at Manali. It is significant that Assistant Sub Inspector Parma Nand was not asked if his immediate superior was Deputy Superintendent of Police at Manali. No explanation was sought from him as to why he sent special report to the Superintendent of Police, at Kullu. The contention has no merit. 44. Mr. It is significant that Assistant Sub Inspector Parma Nand was not asked if his immediate superior was Deputy Superintendent of Police at Manali. No explanation was sought from him as to why he sent special report to the Superintendent of Police, at Kullu. The contention has no merit. 44. Mr. Deepak Gupta then contended that after the recovery of the charas, the Police Party went to the Hotel room of the accused in "Dragon Guest House" Manali which was searched. The search was carried, according to the learned Counsel, on suspicion that there may be some contraband and at least at that stage, if was necessary for the Investigating Officer to have recorded the reasons for his belief that any Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance has been kept or concealed in the room. The contention is fallacious and does not stand scrutiny. It is admitted position that though room of the accused in the hotel was searched but nothing incriminating was found. It is not the case of the prosecution that the Investigating Officer suspected concealment of any incriminating substance, under the Act in the hotel room of the accused. 45. Section 42 of the Act comes into play only if the empowered Officer has reasons to believe from personal knowledge or information received regarding the existence of incriminating substance under the Act in respect of which an offence punishable under Chapter IV of the Act has been committed. If there is no such knowledge or information, Section 42 obviously will not be applicable. In the present case, the Investigating Officer did not have any knowledge or information that any Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance could be recovered from the hotel room of the accused and, therefore, Section 42 of the Act was not applicable so far the search of the hotel room of the accused was concerned (See: Karnail Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 632). 46. Otherwise also, it is now well settled that failure to comply with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, as pointed out in the State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh etc., etc., 1999 Supreme Court Cases 2378, is merely an irregularity which will not vitiate the trial. 47. Mr. 46. Otherwise also, it is now well settled that failure to comply with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, as pointed out in the State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh etc., etc., 1999 Supreme Court Cases 2378, is merely an irregularity which will not vitiate the trial. 47. Mr. Deepak Gupta refers to Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2339, and submitted that in the present case, ASI Parma Nand who recovered the charas was in a position of complainant and, therefore, after the recovery of the charas, he should not have associated with the investigation of the case. His investigating the case further renders the impartiality of the investigation suspect. In Megha Singh, Head Constable Siri Chand along with two other constables spotted the accused who on seeing the Police Party, tried to run away. The police party became suspicious. The accused was intercepted. On the search of the accused, country made pistol along with live cartridges was recovered from his possession. The recovery Memos were prepared. Ruka was sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case. In this context, the learned Judges observed that it was on the complaint of Siri Chand that formal FIR was lodged and case was initiated and, therefore, he should not have proceeded further with the investigation of the case. Such practice, observed. Their Lordships, should not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. 48. In the present case, the investigation was almost complete on the recovery of the charas from the bag of the accused and deposit of the case property with the Station House Officer, Manali. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana by the Station House Officer and the sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner and challan was submitted to the Court by the Officer other than the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the ratio in Megha Singh would not be applicable as held by this Court in Sanjeev Kumar v. State of H.P. In Duni Chand v. State of H.P., 2001 (2) Shimla Law Cases 206, a similar contention was raised. It was contended by the counsel for the accused that investigation was not fair as it was conducted by the Investigating (Officer on whose complaint FIR was registered and serious prejudice has been caused to the accused. It was contended by the counsel for the accused that investigation was not fair as it was conducted by the Investigating (Officer on whose complaint FIR was registered and serious prejudice has been caused to the accused. The contention was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court. It was observed that merely because the investigation was proceeded with even after the recovery of the contraband would not vitiate the investigation. The Division Bench observed: ".....In the natural course if a case is registered on the information received from a Police Officer, he should not investigate the case in the interest of fair and impartial investigation but solely on the ground that the investigation has been conducted by the Police Officer at whose complaint, the FIR was lodged without showing the prejudice caused to the accused, the trial cannot be held vitiated. In the present case, ASI Kishan Dass (PW 7) was an authorized officer empowered to investigate the case under the NDPS Act. He has seized the contraband from the personal search of the accused in case of chance recovery when he along with other police officials was on routine patrol duty. It will be examined in the facts and circumstances of each case whether after lodging the formal First Information Report, it was possible for the Police Officer to hand over further investigation to another competent police officer. No material has been placed on record by the accused to prove prejudice to him on this ground as well". 49. In the present case too, there is nothing on the record to show that any prejudice has been caused to the accused by the investigation of the case by ASI Parma Nand. 50. Lastly, Mr. Gupta submitted that the accused was deaf. He could not understand the questions put to him by the learned Sessions Judge in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, obviously, he did not understand the proceedings which took place in Hindi language with which language accused was not conversant. It was contended that the learned Sessions Judge should have made a provision for providing a person conversant with the English and Hindi language to make the accused understand the proceedings. We find no substance in the contention. It was contended that the learned Sessions Judge should have made a provision for providing a person conversant with the English and Hindi language to make the accused understand the proceedings. We find no substance in the contention. Accused at no point of time represented to the trial Judge that he was unable or handicapped to understand the proceedings of the Court. He never made any grievance to this effect during the course of trial. In fact, he had engaged a counsel who represented him in the trial. Accused had instructed his counsel to cross-examine the witnesses. The accused must have also communicated his defence to the counsel which was put to the witnesses. In the circumstances, in our view, accused cannot be heard to say at the appellate stage that he did not understand, the proceedings in the Court. In fact, the record shows that learned Sessions Judge on May 14, 2000 observed that "questionnaire prepared under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in original handed over to accused who appears to be hard of hearing. So it was difficult to explain him the questions. Accused is conversant with English as reflected by his counsel Shri R.R. Rana Advocate accused was made to write answer to all the questions in his own hand to the statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The accused does not want to lead evidence in his defence." 51. It thus is manifest that accused was not found to be deaf by the learned trial Court but was found to be hard of hearing and the accused was conversant with English language. We may notice that evidence was recorded in English language and not in Hindi, as contended by the learned Counsel. Undisputedly accused is well versed in English. We also notice that accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that he had understood the prosecution evidence which was recorded in his presence. We do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the accused. 52. It is difficult to believe the defence version that the accused has been made a scape goat by the Police. It is incredible to believe that the Police would implicate a innocent person in so serious a crime because real culprit was able to escape. Moreso, when, as pointed out earlier, it was possible for the Police to apprehend any Israeli National. It is incredible to believe that the Police would implicate a innocent person in so serious a crime because real culprit was able to escape. Moreso, when, as pointed out earlier, it was possible for the Police to apprehend any Israeli National. There was no enmity between the Police and the accused nor one is suggested. Police had no axe to grind in implicating the accused. No other point is urged before us. We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.