Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 148 (HP)

SONI v. STATE OF H. P.

2003-06-11

K.C.SOOD, M.R.VERMA

body2003
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. - Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In brief, the facts leading to the presentation of these appeals are as follows:- On 1.3.2000, A.S.I. Amar Singh (PW-11), alongwith Constables Chamel Singh (PW-10) and Rajinder Singh (PW-4), was on traffic duty at Tunuhatci. At about 11.45 a.m. HRTC Bus No. HP 38-2458 bound from Jhajakoti to Pathankot was stopped by the police for the purpose of checking. At the time of checking appellants/accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) were found sitting near the rear window of the bus while they were having one plastic envelope each in their laps. On checking, both the envelopes were found to contain charas. On enquiry, the accused disclosed their names and addresses. The police party made them to alight alongwith the envelopes containing charas and took them to the Check Post Gumti in the presence of Parkash Chand and Vinajy Kumar and they were detained in the Gumti. A Ruka Ext. PH was prepared by PW-11 and was sent to Police Station, Dalhousie through PW-4 for registration of the case with the request to the S.H.O. to visit the spot for taking further action. The S.P. and S.D.P.O. concerned were also informed telephonically. On the basis of Ruka Ext. PH formal F.I.R. Ext. PK was recorded at the Police Station. On receipt of the telephonic information, PW-12 reached the spot. He conducted the search of the accused in the presence of Vijay Kumar (PW-1), Parkash Chand, Constable Jagdish Chand, PW-10 and PW-11. The accused were given the option of being searched in the presence of some Police Officers of the higher rank or some Gazetted Officer and they consented for being searched by PW-12 vide Memo Ext. PA and PB. The search was then conducted and on search of the plastic envelope in possession of accused Raju, one Pant, one Jersy and two plastic envelopes containing charas were found. On search of the plastic envelope in possession of accused Soni, one Pant, one shawl and a plastic envelope containing Charas were found. On weighment, the Charas found in one of the envelope in possession of accused Raju weighed 1 kg. 900 grams and that found in the other envelope weighed 350 grams. On search of the plastic envelope in possession of accused Soni, one Pant, one shawl and a plastic envelope containing Charas were found. On weighment, the Charas found in one of the envelope in possession of accused Raju weighed 1 kg. 900 grams and that found in the other envelope weighed 350 grams. Charas found in the envelope in possession of accused Soni weighed 1 kg 300 grams. Samples of the Charas so recovered each weighing 50 grams were drawn from the different envelopes containing bulk Charas and samples so separated and the remaining Charas were made into separate parcels which were sealed with seal A. Seal after use was handed over to Parkash Chand vide Memo Ext. PC. The accused were arrested and informed of the grounds of arrest vide Memo. Ext. PD. The recovered Charas and samples thereof were deposited by PW-12 with Rajesh Kumar (PW-8) the then MHC Police Station, Dalhousie on the date of recovery for being kept in safe custody, who deposited the case property in the Malkhana. On 5.3.2000 out of the six samples, three sample parcels were sent by him to CTL Kandaghat through LHC Dev Dutt (PW-7). On analysis in the Laboratory all the three samples were found Charas vide reports Exts. PQ, PR and PS. The Officer Incharge of the concerned Police Station submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons against whom the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba framed charge under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act). The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. To prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein they denied the prosecution case and pleaded to be innocent and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the case. The accused,-however, did not lead any defence. 4. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge vide judgment dated 28.2.2001 found the accused persons guilty of the commission of offences punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1, 00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentences, the accused persons have preferred the present appeals. 5. We had heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent State and have also gone through the records. 6. The learned Counsel for the accused had assailed the impugned conviction and sentence oh the following grounds:- (1) That the investigation of the case was not fair; (2) That the independent witnesses had not supported the prosecution case; (3) That the impugned conviction could not be based solely on the evidence of the police officials; (4) That there is no complete link evidence and material witnesses in this regard has been withheld; and Ground No. (1) 7. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the investigation in the case was not fair. While elaborating the contention, the learned Counsel submitted that in fact all the material documents regarding giving of option, seizure, arrest etc. had been prepared at the Police Station and the Investigating Officer (PW-12) could not proceed to the spot to conduct investigation for want of information because it is evident from the contents of Ruka1 Ext. PH that he was requested by PW-11 to come to the spot only through the Ruka and not otherwise. The case file after registration of the case was handed over to PW-12 at Dalhousie as stated by PW-4 and the Investigating Officer himself had not stated that he proceeded to the spot after receipt of Ruka but claims to have gone to the spot on telephonic request from PW-11 who as per the Ruka, did not give him the telephonic information and, as admitted by PW-12, he had left for spot before receipt of Ruka at the Police Station. Thus, the alleged arrival of PW-12 on the spot and investigation by him on the spot is a cooked up story. 8. It is admitted case of the Investigating Officer (PW-12) that he proceeded to the spot on receipt of telephonic information from ASI Amar Singh (PW-11) before the receipt of Ruka in the Police Station. There is no suggestion to PW-12 in his cross-examination that he did not receive any telephonic call from PW-11 to visit the spot or he never went to the spot to carry out investigation or he prepared all the material documents in the Police Station. There is no suggestion to PW-12 in his cross-examination that he did not receive any telephonic call from PW-11 to visit the spot or he never went to the spot to carry out investigation or he prepared all the material documents in the Police Station. His statement about receipt of telephonic information regarding detection of the offence is corroborated by PW-11 who has stated that when he found the accused in possession of Charas, he telephonically informed the S.P., S.D.P.O. and S.H.O. He has re-affirmed in his cross-examination that he had informed the S.H.O. telephonically. PW-10 has also stated that information about the accused being in possession of Charas was conveyed to the S.H.O. telephonically. In view of the statements of PW-10, PW-11 and PW-12, it is duly proved that-PW-12 received the information about the accused being in possession of Charas telephonically and thereafter proceeded to the spot. This conclusion is further; strengthen by the fact that conveying of information to the S.P. and S.D.P.O. by PW-11 telephonically is not disputed. It means that telephone was available to convey the information. The visiting of the spot by PW-12 and then taking over the investigation is duly proved in view of the unchallenged testimony of PWs. 10, 11 and 12 in this regard. Therefore, on the basis of the omission to mention in the Ruka that the S.H.O. was telephonically called to the spot, it cannot be said that PW-12 was not so-called and did not visit the spot to carry on the investigation and prepared the documents at the Police Station. 9. It was next contended that as per the version in the Ruka Ext. PH, the Charas had already been recovered by the Police party which conducted the checking of the us, therefore, the alleged giving of option for search, search and recovery by PW-12 vide memos. Exts. PA, PB and PC, is not only a farce but unfair acts to involve the accused by manipulating fake search and recovery. 10. It is evident from the contents of Ruka Ext. PH and the statements of PW-10 and PW-11 that the Charas in possession of the accused had been detected when PW-11 was conducting the search of the luggage of the accused. Thus, it is a case of chance recovery. 10. It is evident from the contents of Ruka Ext. PH and the statements of PW-10 and PW-11 that the Charas in possession of the accused had been detected when PW-11 was conducting the search of the luggage of the accused. Thus, it is a case of chance recovery. However, PW-11 thereafter did not proceed with further investigation of the case and informed his superior officers telephonically and also sent Ruka1 Ext. PH to the Police Station requesting PW-12 to come the spot for further action in the matter and in the meanwhile detained the accused persons at the cabin of the check post till the arrival of PW-12 to the spot. There is nothing unfair in such acts and conduct of PW-11. Having detected the Charas by chance and by sending Ruka Ext. PH to the Police Station, PW-11 had assumed the position of a complainant and, therefore, his not proceeding with the investigation and requesting his superior officer to visit the spot and conduct further investigation, is a fair and unquestionable act on his part. 11. It is stated by PW-12 that after visiting the spot, he gave option for search to the accused vide Ext. PA as required under Section 50 of the Act and the accused consented for search by him vide memo. Ext. PB. Since the Charas had already been found in possession of the accused by PW-11 per chance, therefore, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act were not attracted for compliance and the giving, of option for search vide memo. Ext. PA and taking of consent vide memo. Ext. PB was not required. However, there is noting in doing so which may be termed as "un faired investigation" or causing prejudice to the accused. Evidently, PW-12 acted under the misconception that he. Had to appraise the accused of their right under Section 50 of the Act to have their search conducted before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Therefore, his action though was misconceived, yet was not mala fide. To act in good faith under some misconception and to act unfairly are two distinct acts and the said act of PW-12 cannot be termed as unfair. 12. It was also contended that the provisions of Section 55 of the Act were not complied with inasmuch as the allegedly recovered Charas was not re-sealed before depositing in the Malkhana. To act in good faith under some misconception and to act unfairly are two distinct acts and the said act of PW-12 cannot be termed as unfair. 12. It was also contended that the provisions of Section 55 of the Act were not complied with inasmuch as the allegedly recovered Charas was not re-sealed before depositing in the Malkhana. The contention is without any rnerit and substance. The Charas was weighed, samples separated and case property sealed by PW-12 who himself was the Officer Incharge of the concerned Police Station. Therefore, the provisions of Section 55 of the Act were also not attracted for compliance. 13. The learned Counsel for the accused further contended that PW-12 had left Police Station before receipt of Ruka Ext. PH at the Police Station and was, thus, not aware of the number of the First Information Report registered on the basis of Ext. PH. However, he had given the number of the F.I.R. on the documents allegedly prepared on the spot which could not have been done. It is true that Exts. PA, PB, PC and PD, each prepared on the spot, at the top bear F.I.R. number. However, a bare look on these documents shows that figure 22, i.e. number of the F.I.R. had been inserted thereon at a later stage. To correlate such documents to the F.I.R., it is necessary that F.I.R. number is given on such documents. In case of non availability of F.I.R. number at the time of preparing the documents, it will have to be given at a later stage for the aforesaid purpose. Therefore, such number when inserted in a document at a later stage, does not mean manipulation of record or unfair act as such insertion does not add to or subtract from the document anything material. 14. It was further contended by the learned Counsel that even provisions of Section 57 of the Act were not complied with by the Investigating Officer which not only is suggestive of Unfairness in the investigation but also is ipso facto fatal to the case of the prosecution: 15. The report under Section 57 of the Act Ext. PJ has been produced in evidence by the prosecution. PW-12 has stated that he sent the report Ext. PJ to S.P. Chamba on 2.3.2000. In his cross-examination he has clarified that he prepared this report on 2.3.2000. The report under Section 57 of the Act Ext. PJ has been produced in evidence by the prosecution. PW-12 has stated that he sent the report Ext. PJ to S.P. Chamba on 2.3.2000. In his cross-examination he has clarified that he prepared this report on 2.3.2000. Thuru Ram (PW-6) has stated that on 2.3.2000 he took report Ext. PJ from Police Station Dalhousie to the office of S.P. Chamba and handed it over to his Assistant Reader. Naresh Kumar (PW-5) has stated that report Ext. PJ was received by him from PW-6 on 2.3.2000 and he placed it before the Superintendent of Police. Thus, compliance of the provisions of Section 57 of the Act in sending the report to his superior officer by PW-12 within the prescribed time is fully proved. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused does not hold good. 16. In view of the above discussion and conclusions, the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that the investigation in the case was not fair, is unsustainable. Grounds No. (2) and (3) 17. Since both these grounds are inter-connected, therefore, are taken up for discussion and decision together. 18. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the prosecution had produced two independent witnesses but none of them has supported its version. The three police officials, one of whom is not even marginal witness of the recovery memo, being interested and partisan witnesses, contradicted by independent witnesses on all material particulars, could not be believed to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. Therefore, there being no reliable evidence, the accused could not be convicted and are entitled to be acquitted. 19. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General had argued that the statements of police officials relied on by the trial Court are reliable and confidence inspiring and there is nothing in law to support the contention for the accused that conviction cannot be recorded on the basis of the evidence of police officials. Therefore, while supporting the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Advocate General urged that the trial Court has rightly believed and relied on the evidence of the police officials in convicting the accused and the impugned conviction and sentence do not call for any interference. 20. Therefore, while supporting the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Advocate General urged that the trial Court has rightly believed and relied on the evidence of the police officials in convicting the accused and the impugned conviction and sentence do not call for any interference. 20. It is by now well-settled that statements of official witnesses cannot be disbelieved simply on the ground that they are officials. It is only a rule of caution that their evidence must be strictly scrutinised and if cogent, trustworthy and confidence inspiring, conviction can be based on such evidence. However, if the evidence of the official witnesses suffers from improbabilities and the version is shrouded by suspicious circumstances, is unsafe to base conviction on such evidence. 21. In Nainu Ram v. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2002 (H.P.) - (DB) 820 a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the subject, held as under:- "9. It may be pointed out at the very outset the there is no independent witness to support the prosecution version and the detention, searched seizure of Charas are sought to be proved by the evidence of the official witnesses, viz., the police officials ASI Dorje Ram (PW-4), constable Uttam Singh (PW-5) and SI Sanjay Kumar (PW-6). It is true that there is no rule of law that testimony of official witness should not be given any credence. On the contrary conviction can be based on trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence of such witness. However, it is a rule of caution that evidence of such witnesses must be scrutinized strictly. If such evidence suffers from improbabilities and the version is shrouded by suspicious circumstances, it is unsafe to base conviction on such evidence." 22. In State of Kerala v. M.M. Mathew, AIR 1978 SC. However, it is a rule of caution that evidence of such witnesses must be scrutinized strictly. If such evidence suffers from improbabilities and the version is shrouded by suspicious circumstances, it is unsafe to base conviction on such evidence." 22. In State of Kerala v. M.M. Mathew, AIR 1978 SC. 1571, the Honble Supreme Court held as under :- "It is true that Courts of law have to judge the evidence before them by applying the well recognised test of basic human probabilities and that some of the observations made by the Sessions Judge especially one to the effect that the evidence of officers constituting the inspecting party is highly interested because they want that the accused are convicted cannot be accepted as it runs counter to the well recognised 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." 23. It is in view of the above settled position in law that the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the accused has to be examined. 24. No doubt, the independent witnesses, namely, PW-1 and PW-3 have not supported the prosecution version as a whole and resiled from their statements Ext. PE and PG recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, despite this, their evidence partially support the prosecution case. PW-1 has stated that the passenger bus in question was stopped at the barrier where the police carry out the checking of the vehicles and also check the luggage of the passengers travelling by buses. He has further stated that after stopping the bus, the passengers alighted from the bus and all of them were holding their luggage. He has admitted his signatures on the seizure memo. Ext. PC which was prepared by PW-12 about weighing the recovered Charas, drawing samples therefrom and then sealing the samples and bulk Charas, with seal "A". He has further admitted that the police did not put any pressure on him for obtaining his signatures on the said documents. He has admittedly not asked the police as to why his signatures were being obtained. In view of these admissions, it is evident that this witness is concealing the true facts. He has further admitted that the police did not put any pressure on him for obtaining his signatures on the said documents. He has admittedly not asked the police as to why his signatures were being obtained. In view of these admissions, it is evident that this witness is concealing the true facts. There is no reason to believe that he had signed memo. Ext. PC without knowing the contents thereof because admittedly he was not under pressure of the police. He is running a tea-stall, therefore, cannot be said such a person who will sign documents without knowing the contents thereof. It is evident from the manner of his making the statement that he is not making a true disclosure of the facts. In his examination-in-chief he claims that during the period the bus remained stopped at the spot, he remained in his shop and he does not know anything about the case except the stopping of the bus on the barrier but in his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he has not denied the factum of the accused having been found carrying polythene bag containing Charas for want of knowledge but has specially, though unwittingly, denied the case of the prosecution regarding search, recovery and seizure etc. of the Charas as "incorrect". Evidently, for the reasons best known to him, he has not made true disclosure of the facts regarding search, recovery and seizure of the Charas from the possession of the accused. 25. Similarly, PW-3 admits that he was Conductor in the bus in question and that when the bus reached Tunuhati, it was stopped for usual checking and the passengers in the bus got down and the police started checking their luggage. He has further stated that there was noise that some passengers had been apprehended with Charas though he did not see anything himself. He admits that thereafter they remained on the spot for 15-20 minutes. It is improbable in the ordinary course of human conduct that this witness whose passengers were caught by the police, did not care to find out as to which passengers were so apprehended. Thus, this witness is not speaking the whole truth. 26. In view of the above discussed statements of PW-1 and PW-3, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be unfounded. 27. The official witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW-10, PW-11 and PW-12. Thus, this witness is not speaking the whole truth. 26. In view of the above discussed statements of PW-1 and PW-3, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be unfounded. 27. The official witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW-10, PW-11 and PW-12. PW-10 and PW-11 have fully supported the prosecution version regarding the accused persons having been found in possession of Charas which was later weighed by PW-12 after his arrival on the spot and it was found that the Charas in possession of accused Raju kept in two polithene bags was 1 kg. 900 grams in one bag arid 350 gms. In the other. The Charas found in the bag in possession of accused Soni, weighed 1 kg. 300 Gms. Both these witnesses have corroborated the statement of PW-12 about the drawing of the samples from the recovered Charas, sealing of the bulk Charas and the samples by PW-12 with seal "A" vide seizure memo. Ext. PC. PW-12 has fully supported the prosecution version regarding weighing of the Charas, separating the samples, packing of the bulk Charas and the samples separately and sealing the same with seal "A". There are no material contradictions in the statements of these three official witnesses on any material particular which may go to the root of the case. They have no enmity with nor any prejudice against the accused and thus no motive to falsely implicate the accused in the crime. The quantity of the recovered Charas apparently in such that it could not have been procured by the police to implicate the accused. Thus, the version of these witnesses is cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring and has rightly been believed by the learned trial judge. 28. For the reasons stated hereinabove, it cannot be held that the prosecution case having not been supported by the independent witnesses, must fail. Therefore, the contentions raised by the accused cannot be sustained. Ground No. (4) 29. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that there is no link evidence to prove that the case property remained in safe custody from the date of seizure till its production in the Court and Parkash Chand to whom the seal used for sealing the case property was allegedly handed over and the seal have not been produced, thus, tampering of the case property cannot be ruled out. Therefore, accused deserve the benefit of doubt. 30. It has been stated by PW-10, PW-11 and PW-12 that the bulk charas and samples were sealed on the spot with seal A. There is no contrary suggestion put to them in their cross-examination by the accused. Rajesh Kumar (PW-8), the then MHC, Police Station, Dalhousie, has stated that on 1.3.2000, i.e. the date of recovery and seizure of the Charas, PW-12 had handed over 6 samples parcels, three bulk parcels and seal impression sample to him which were sealed with seal A and on 5.3.2000 he sent three sample parcels to CTL, Kandaghat through LHC Dev Datt. He has further stated that said case property remained intact during the period it remained in his custody. No contrary suggestion has been put to the witness in his cross-examination.; LHC Dev Datt (PW-7) has corroborated the statement of PW-8 about handing over to him of three sample parcels sealed with seal A on 5.3.2000 for delivery in CTL. Kandaghat and has further stated that he delivered the samples in the said Laboratory on 6.3.2000 and till the samples remained in his possession, those remained intact. Even this witness has not been cross-examined about the safety of the samples. Vide reports Exts. PQ, PR and PS, Assistant Chemical Examiner, CTL. Kandaghat has certified that the samples were received in the Laboratory on 6.3.2000 through PW-7 and the seals on the samples tallied with sample seal and were intact. 31. The case property was produced in evidence at the trial and it is nobodys case that when so produced; its seals were not intact or were found tampered within any manner. This evidence clearly proves that the case property and the samples remained untempered with throughout. 32. Then seal used for sealing the case property was not produced in the Court. However, non-production of the seal does not prove or suggest tampering with the case property. It is- not the requirement of law that seal used in sealing the case property must invariably be produced at the trial. If there is cogent and complete link evidence in the form of statements on oath, non-production of the seal and the witness to whom it was handed over, is inconsequential and will not render the prosecution case unreliable. 33. in Fredrick George v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2000 Cri. If there is cogent and complete link evidence in the form of statements on oath, non-production of the seal and the witness to whom it was handed over, is inconsequential and will not render the prosecution case unreliable. 33. in Fredrick George v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2000 Cri. L.J. 4600, a Division Bench of this Court has held as under:-. "62. It is a fact that the seals used for sealing and re-sealing the bulk case property and the samples have not been produced at the trial. In Manjit Singhs case (2001(2) C.L.J. (CCR) 74) (supra) while dealing with the effect of non-production of the deal, this Court held as under :-"In the absence of any mandatory provision in the law/Rules of procedure relating to sealing of the case property, that the seal used in sealing the case property must be produced at the trial, it cannot be said that failure to produce such seal at the trial will be fatal to the case of the prosecution. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case whether by non-production of the seal at the trial any doubt is raised about the safe custody of the case property or not. 63. In view of the above position in law and the conclusion we have already arrived at hereinabove that there is unchallenged and trustworthy evidence that the case property was not tampered with at any stage, the non-production of the seals used for sealing and re-sealing of the bulk case property of the samples is also of no help to the accused." 34. It may be pointed out that the learned counsel for the accused, to substantiate his contention had relied on Valsala v. State of Kerala, AIR 1994 SC 117 wherein it has been held as under :- "4. We have seen the report of the Chemical Examiner and there is no doubt it is mentioned that one sealed parcel was received containing a powder and it was analysed to be Brown Sugar. We have seen the report of the Chemical Examiner and there is no doubt it is mentioned that one sealed parcel was received containing a powder and it was analysed to be Brown Sugar. But fro the records it is clear and it is also noted by both the Courts below that the seized article was produced in the Court only on 14.1.1988 i.e. after a period of more than three months and there is no evidence whatsoever at all to show with whom the seized article was lying and even assuming that it was in the custody of PW-6, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station who seized it, there is again nothing to show whether it was sealed and kept there. The learned Counsel for the State no doubt argued that the provisions of Section 55 of the Act are not mandatory but only directory. We need not go into this legal question in this case. Suffice it to say that the article seized appears to have been not kept in proper custody and proper form so that the Court can be sure that what was seized only was sent to the Chemical Examiner. There is a big gap and an important missing link. In the mahazar Ex. P.2 which is immediately said to have been prepared, there is nothing mentioned as to under whose custody it was kept after seizure. Unfortunately for the prosecution even PW-6 does not say that he continued to keep it in his custody under seal till it was produced in the Court on 14.1.1988. The evidence given by PW-6 Police Sub Inspector, who seized the article, is absolutely silent as to what he did with the seized article till it was produced in the Court. As a matter of fact he did not produce it in the Court. PW-3 ASI is supposed to have produced the same in the Court. But PW-3 does not say anything about this. As a matter of fact he did not produce it in the Court. PW-3 ASI is supposed to have produced the same in the Court. But PW-3 does not say anything about this. It is only PW-7 the Circle Inspector who comes into the picture at a later date, who admitted in the cross-examination that the seized article was sent by PW-3 (A.S.I.) to the Court and PW-7 in his cross-examination further admitted that he did not even see if the recovered material object was sealed but still he claims that he made the necessary application for sending the material object for chemical examination and it is only through PW-7 that the Chemical Examiners Report is marked. PW-7 further admitted that he did not even know when it reached the Court. We are constrained to say that the investigation in this case has been perfunctory and on important aspects the evidence of the concerned officers is highly discrepant and unconvincing and does not throw much light. Therefore, the evidence adduced is wholly insufficient to conclude that what was seized from the appellant alone was sent to the Chemical Examiner. Though this is purely a question of fact but this is an important link. Both the courts below have not examined this aspect in a proper perspective. No doubt the trafficking in narcotic drugs is a menace to the society but in the absence of satisfactory proof, the Courts cannot convict." 35. It is apparent on a bare perusal of the above that there was virtually no evidence about the safe custody of the case property whereas there is evidence in the case in hand to prove the safe custody of the case property throughout. Therefore, the ratio in the aforesaid case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 36. In view of the above, there is no merit in the contention that there is no complete link evidence about safe custody of case property; therefore, accused deserves benefit of doubt. 37. For the reasons and conclusions hereinabove, the charges against the accused persons are fully proved and they have rightly been convicted and sentenced. 38. As a result, both these appeals are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.