JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. - Two appeals bearing Crl. A. Nos. 452 and 414-SB of 2002 have been filed by Karamjit Singh and Jit Singh, appellants, respectively, against judgment and order dated 29.1.2002 passed by Judge, Special Court, Sangrur, whereby they were found guilty and convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and each one of them was sentenced to RI for 10 years and a fine of Rs. one lac. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter was further sentenced to undergo RI for one year. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 25.8.1999, PW-4 Sukhdev Singh, Sub Inspector, alongwith PW-5 ASI Gurdev Singh and other police officials was present at T-point, Chaunda Road in the area of Village Amargarh in connection with Nakabandi. He received secret information that the appellants had concealed huge quantity of poppy husk in the groove of trees in Khatans near nursery near canal bridge Mahorana towards the side of Village Slar and if raid was conducted, they could be apprehended red handed at the spot alongwith poppy husk. 3. Upon receipt of this information, PW-4 Sukhdev Singh, Sub-Inspector, sent Ruqa, Ex. PD, to the Police Station through Davinder Singh, Head Constable, on the basis of which formal FIR, Ex. PD/1, was recorded by ASI Balbir Chand. 4. After sending the Ruqa, PW-4 Sukhdev Singh, Sub Inspector, alongwith members of the police party went to the place in question and found that both the appellants were sitting on the gunny bags. On seeing the police party, Jit Singh @ Tipa, appellant, managed to escape, although he was identified by PW-4 Sukhdev Singh, Inspector, in torch light. Karamjit Singh, appellant, was apprehended at the spot. PW-4 Sukhdev Singh, Sub Inspector, told Karamjit Singh that his personal search as well as gunny bags were to be searched and if he so desired, he could be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, on which he opted for the search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, his consent statement, Ex.PE, was recorded, which was signed by the appellant, Karamjit Singh and attested by the witnesses. PW-4 Sukhdev Singh, Sub Inspector, thereafter sent wireless message to DSP Ranbir Singh to reach the spot. Accordingly, his consent statement, Ex.PE, was recorded, which was signed by the appellant, Karamjit Singh and attested by the witnesses. PW-4 Sukhdev Singh, Sub Inspector, thereafter sent wireless message to DSP Ranbir Singh to reach the spot. In the presence of the DSP and under his directions, search was conducted of the 46 gunny bags, which, on search, were found to contain poppy husk. On weighment, each gunny bag contained 35 kgs. of poppy husk. Two samples of 250 grams each were taken out from each of the gunny bags. The sample parcels and the remainder in gunny bags were separately sealed with the seal of SS. Sample seal of SS, Ex. P1, was separately prepared and seal, after use, was handed over to Ranjit Singh, PW. DSP Ranbir Singh (now deceased) also attested the case property as well as sample seal chit, Ex. P1. The sealed samples as well as the remainder poppy husk in the gunny bags were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PF attested by the witnesses including Ranbir Singh, DSP. On personal search of Karamjit Singh, Rs. 150/- were recovered, which were also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG. He prepared rough site plan, Ex. PJ, of the place of recovery with correct marginal notes. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. 5. On 26.8.1999, PW-4 Sukhdev Singh, Sub Inspector, produced the property alongwith the appellant, Karamjit Singh before Ilaqa Magistrate, who verified the facts and attested the case property. After it, the Investigating Officer deposited the same with MHC Bikar Singh with seals intact. 6. The appellant, Jit Singh @ Tipa was arrested subsequently. 7. Upon receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. PK and completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the appellants in the Court. 8. Having made out a prima-facie case, the appellants were charged under Section 15 of the Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 9. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined five witnesses. 10. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, wherein they denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. In defence, they examined DW-1 Darshan Singh and DW-2 Head Constable Jasmel Singh and also tendered in evidence carbon copy of application, mark A acknowledgement receipt, Ex. D-14 and postal receipt, Ex. In defence, they examined DW-1 Darshan Singh and DW-2 Head Constable Jasmel Singh and also tendered in evidence carbon copy of application, mark A acknowledgement receipt, Ex. D-14 and postal receipt, Ex. D-15 and closed the evidence. 11. After hearing learned PP for the State and the defence counsel, the appellants were found guilty and convicted under Section 15 of the Act vide judgment dated 29.1.2002 and sentenced vide order of even date as stated in the earlier part of the judgment. 12. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 29.1.2002, Karamjit Singh and Jit Singh, appellants, filed the abovesaid two separates appeals, which are being disposed of by this common judgment as they have arisen from the same judgment and order dated 29.1.2002. 13. I have heard Shri K.K. Goel, counsel for the appellants, Ms. R.K. Nihalsinghwala, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and carefully gone through the record. 14. The case against the appellants depends upon the statements of PW-4 Sukhdev Singh, Sub Inspector and PW-5 Gurdev Singh, ASI. Ranjit Singh, independent witness, was given up as won over on the statement of learned Additional PP. Ranbir Singh, DSP, who had reached the spot and the recovery was affected in his presence has not been examined, since he had expired. 15. PW-4 Sukhdev Singh, Sub Inspector, stated that on 25.8.1999, he was posted as S.H.O. in Police Station Amargarh. He next stated that on that day, he alongwith ASI Bachhittar Singh, PW-5 ASI Gurdev Singh and other police officials was present at T-point at Chaunda Road in the area of Village Amargarh in connection with Nakabandi. He further stated that Ranjit Singh @ Manga was also with the police party and in the mean time, he received secret information that the appellants were in possession of huge quantity of poppy husk and were present in Khatans near canal bridge near nursery in the area of village Mahorana and if the raid was conducted, they could be apprehended red handed with poppy husk. 16. Upon receipt of the said secret information, he sent Ex. PD, to the Police Station through Head Constable Davinder Singh, on the basis of which formal FIR, Ex. PD/1 was recorded by ASI Balbir Chand, whose signatures he identified. 16. Upon receipt of the said secret information, he sent Ex. PD, to the Police Station through Head Constable Davinder Singh, on the basis of which formal FIR, Ex. PD/1 was recorded by ASI Balbir Chand, whose signatures he identified. After sending ruqa, he alongwith police party, went to the spot and both the appellants were found present there, sitting on the gunny bags in the groove of trees. He next stated that on seeing the police party, Jit Singh @ Tipa managed to escape while Karamjit Singh was apprehended at the spot. He next stated that he had given an after to Karamjit Singh that he suspected that there was some intoxicant material in the gunny bags and wanted to take search of the same and whether he would like to be searched in the presence of some Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, who vide consent memo Ex. PE, expressed his desire to get the search done in the presence of Gazetted Officer. His statement, Ex. PE, was reduced into writing, which was signed by him and attested by ASI Bachhittar Singh, ASI Gurdev Singh and PW Ranjit Singh @ Manga. Thereafter he sent wireless message to DSP Ranbir Singh, who reached the spot after sometime and on his direction, he conducted the search of 46 gunny bags, which were found to contain poppy husk. On weighment, each gunny bag was found to contain 35 kgs. of poppy husk. Out of each gunny bag, two samples of 250 grams each were taken out as sample. The samples and the remainder in the gunny bags were separately sealed with the seal of SS and seal chit, Ex. P1, was prepared separately and seal, after use, was handed over to Ranjit Singh, PW. Ranbir Singh, DSP, attested the case property, including the sample seal chit, Ex. P1. The samples as well as residue in the gunny bags were taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PF attested by the witnesses. He further stated on personal search of Karamjit Singh, appellant, Rs. 150/- were recovered, which were taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PG, attested by the witnesses. He prepared rough site plan, Ex. PJ of the place of recovery with correct marginal notes. PF attested by the witnesses. He further stated on personal search of Karamjit Singh, appellant, Rs. 150/- were recovered, which were taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PG, attested by the witnesses. He prepared rough site plan, Ex. PJ of the place of recovery with correct marginal notes. On the next day i.e. 26.8.1999, he produced the case property alongwith the appellant, Karamjit Singh in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, who attested the case property and thereafter he deposited the samples as well as the case property with the MHC Bikkar Singh on return to the Police Station. The appellant, Jit Singh was also subsequently arrested. After the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. PK, the challan was put up in the Court. He also stated that the second sample parcels were Ex. P2 to Ex. P47 and gunny bags containing remaining poppy husk were Ex. P48 to Ex. P93. PW-5 ASI Gurdev Singh has fully corroborated the version of PW-4 Sukhdev Singh. 17. Of course Ranjit Singh, PW, has not been examined by the prosecution and was given up was won over. The only inference is that had he been examined, he would not have supported the prosecution version. In the absence of independent evidence, the testimony of the official witnesses had to be closely scrutinised. 18. Counsel for the appellants contended that Jit Singh was not apprehended at the spot and it was alleged by the prosecution that on seeing the police party, he had run away and was identified by PW-4 Sukhdev Singh, Sub Inspector, in torch light. Admittedly, the alleged recovery had taken place at mid-night because PW-4 Sukhdev Singh had held Nakabandi at about 10.15 p.m. It is difficult to believe that in the presence of large number of police officials (i.e. 12 to 13 persons), Jit Singh had escaped. PW-4 had not stated how he knew Jit Singh. Mere stating that Jit Singh was known to him earlier is not enough. Admittedly, he was not known to PW-5 ASI Gurdev Singh. PW-5 ASI Gurdev Singh stated that Head Constable Gurmej Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, Constable, also knew him. However, they have not been examined to prove the identity of Jit Singh beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. Mere stating that Jit Singh was known to him earlier is not enough. Admittedly, he was not known to PW-5 ASI Gurdev Singh. PW-5 ASI Gurdev Singh stated that Head Constable Gurmej Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, Constable, also knew him. However, they have not been examined to prove the identity of Jit Singh beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. PW-5 admitted in his cross-examination that he had not stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code that Jit Singh @ Tipa was identified by Gurmej Singh, Head Constable and PHG Sukhwinder Singh. In the groove (grove ?) of trees at about mid-night, it is difficult to identity a person from a distance with the help of torch light. It is not the case that the independent witness, Ranjit Singh, already knew Jit Singh @ Tipa. It is also not the case that Jit Singh @ Tipa was involved in some cases, which were investigated by PW-4 Sukhdev Singh, Sub Inspector. PW-4 did not state in his statement that he knew him earlier. In such circumstances, it is doubtful that Jit Singh @ Tipa was present at the spot and run away. 19. Consequently, Crl. A. No. 414-SB of 2002 is allowed and the appellant, Jit Singh is given benefit of doubt and is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 20. However, there is over whelming evidence against Karamjit Singh to the effect that he was apprehended at the spot at mid-night and 46 bags, each containing 35 kgs. of poppy husk were recovered from him and further two samples of 250 grams each were drawn from each of the gunny bags and the sample parcels and the remainder in gunny bags were separately sealed with the seal of SS and were taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PF, attested by the witnesses. Both of them, PW-4 Sukhdev Singh, Sub Inspector and PW-5 Gurdev Singh, ASI, had been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but they have well with-stood the test of cross-examination and there is nothing to dis-believe their sworn testimony. 21. Counsel for the appellants contended that Ranjit Singh, PW, was a stock witness of the police because he had already appeared as prosecution witness in four cases registered vide FIRs Exs. D-9 to D-12, which had been proved by DW-2 Jasmer Singh, Head Constable. 21. Counsel for the appellants contended that Ranjit Singh, PW, was a stock witness of the police because he had already appeared as prosecution witness in four cases registered vide FIRs Exs. D-9 to D-12, which had been proved by DW-2 Jasmer Singh, Head Constable. It is true that Ranjit Singh had been cited as a witness in the aforesaid FIRs but it is not the case that in all these FIRs, Sukhdev Singh, Sub Inspector, was the Investigating Officer. Further, it is not known whether he had appeared in the aforesaid cases. In such circumstances, Ranjit Singh could not be branded as stock witness of the police. Thus, for non-production of PW Ranjit Singh, the testimony of police officials cannot be discarded but has to be scrutinised carefully and on careful scrutiny, I find that their testimony is believable. 22. Counsel for the appellants next contended that conscious possession or gunny bags could not be attributed to Karamjit Singh as there was no evidence that the bags were kept at the spot by him. In my opinion, the contention of learned counsel is not tenable. When the police party reached the spot, then the appellant-Karamjit Singh was sitting on the gunny bags and he was apprehended at the spot, so, conscious possession or the gunny bags containing poppy husk has to be attributed to him. Karamjit Singh, appellant, examined in defence DW-1 Darshan Singh, who stated that Karamjit Singh was taken by the police of Police Station, Amargarh, from his house and further receipts, Ex. D1 to D8 of the PCO were produced to prove that DW-1 had made telephonic calls to SHO of Police Station, Amargarh. However, there is no evidence that the said telephonic calls were made in connection with the illegal detention of Karamjit Singh, appellant. It may be that the telephonic calls were made to get released Karamjit Singh but without success. From the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. PK, it is found that poppy husk was recovered from the appellant, Karamjit Singh. 23. Counsel for the appellants also contended that for the non-examination of DSP Ranbir Singh, they had been prejudiced. It may be that the telephonic calls were made to get released Karamjit Singh but without success. From the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. PK, it is found that poppy husk was recovered from the appellant, Karamjit Singh. 23. Counsel for the appellants also contended that for the non-examination of DSP Ranbir Singh, they had been prejudiced. In my opinion, no prejudice had been caused to the appellants, if DSP has not been examined because the prosecution has not intentionally with-held him but he could not be produced as he had died and only the gunny bags were searched in his presence. The recovery had already taken place, which was witnessed by PW-4 and PW-5. 24. Hence, I hold that the prosecution has been able to bring home guilt to the appellant, Karamjit Singh, beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. Consequently, Crl. A. No. 452-SB of 2002 is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.