Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. To begin with we may mention that in the paper-book, the title of the present appeal is wrongly shown as Gurinder Singh v. State of Punjab, whereas the respondent is to be described as Union Territory, Chandigarh. Therefore, the present appeal shall now be captioned as "Gurinder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh." 2. Appellant Gurinder Singh son of Avtar Singh, resident of village Bagha Kalan, District Amritsar along with his co-accused Sunil Kumar son of Mohan Lal Sharma, resident of Amritsar was booked in a case bearing FIR No. 177, dated 8.8.1997, registered at police station Sector 39 Chandigarh under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short "the Act") for allegedly carrying 9 Kgs. and 165 Grams of heroin (smack) on 8.8.1997 in a Maruti Van bearing registration No. PB-02-3968. 3. Both the accused were of the age of about 20 years at the time of alleged recovery and were students. Sunil Kumar died during trial and as such the proceedings qua him were dropped and appellant stands convicted for the said charge vide impugned judgment dated 11.8.2000 of learned Judge, Special Court, Chandigarh. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default thereof to suffer further RI for two years. The van was also ordered to be confiscated. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, he has preferred the present appeal. However, no appeal has been filed by the Superdar/owner of the van. 4. The prosecution case in brief runs thus : On 8.8.1997 at 4.20 P.M. Inspector Mani Ram, SHO, Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh along with SI Jagir Singh, Constables Dalbir Singh, Sapinder Singh, Bhoop Singh, Krishan Pal and Narinder Singh was present near Dadu Majra colony turn, when he received a secret information to the effect that two boys were coming with a heavy quantity of smack for sale from Punjab to Chandigarh in a Maruti Van No. PB-02-K-3968 and if naka (blockade) is laid, they could be apprehended. Considering the information to be reliable, Inspector Mani Ram sent a ruqa (Ex. PD) to the senior officer (DSP Surjit Singh-PW9) through Constable Krishan Pal (No. 3122-PW4), intimating him of the secret information. An endorsement Ex. PW was made by DSP Surjit Singh, upon which DDR No. 39 (Ex. Considering the information to be reliable, Inspector Mani Ram sent a ruqa (Ex. PD) to the senior officer (DSP Surjit Singh-PW9) through Constable Krishan Pal (No. 3122-PW4), intimating him of the secret information. An endorsement Ex. PW was made by DSP Surjit Singh, upon which DDR No. 39 (Ex. PF) was recorded on the same day at 6.40 PM in police station Sector 39 Chandigarh. Kuldip Kumar (PW4) son of Tilak Raj and Mukesh Kumar (PW-10) son of Faquir Chand also reached the spot and they were joined in the raiding party. Thereafter the raiding party reached Palsora Colony turning, Sector 39 Chandigarh and put a naka there. SI Pale Ram, SI Bishi Ram and another Constable Krishan Pal (there are two constables by the same name viz. Krishan Pal) also reached there, who were also joined in the raiding party. After sometime the aforesaid van came at a very high speed. It was got stopped. Sunil Kumar (deceased) was driving the van whereas the appellant was sitting on the front seat with him. A green and a black coloured raxine bag was lying on the small seat in between the seats of both of them. They were asked by Inspector Mani Ram that they were suspected to be in possession of some smack, for which their van was to be searched and if they so desired, they could get their search conducted before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. On this they opted to be searched before a gazetted officer. DSP Surjit Singh was given a telephonic message to reach the spot. On reaching there, he sought their option regarding search before him after apprising them that he was a gazetted officer. On their no objection, their van was searched. On search of the said raxine bag, it was found to contain 10 white cloth bags each containing smack. The bags were marked as serial Nos. 1 to 10. The total smack recovered from the said 10 bags was found to be 9 Kgs and 165 Grams. 15 Grams was taken out of each bag as sample. All the samples were put in plastic (dibbis) boxes after wrapping the same with polythene. The ten sample bundles and the ten residual bundles were sealed with the seal of `MR (Mani Ram) at three places each and were taken into possession. 15 Grams was taken out of each bag as sample. All the samples were put in plastic (dibbis) boxes after wrapping the same with polythene. The ten sample bundles and the ten residual bundles were sealed with the seal of `MR (Mani Ram) at three places each and were taken into possession. Since the appellant and his co-accused could not produce any permit or licence, they were taken into custody. After competing all the legal formalities, a ruqa (Ex. PS) was sent by Inspector Mani Ram to the police station Sector 39 Chandigarh through Constable Bhoop Singh, upon which the formal FIR (Ex. PS/1) was recorded vide DDR No. 42 on the same day at 8-30 P.M. The special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate on the next day at 11.30 A.M. 5. After completion of investigation, the appellant and his co-accused were challaned. As stated above, both were charged under Section 21 of the Act. After appreciating the entire evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the said charge. 6. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge against the appellant has examined as many as 15 witnesses. The break up of the material witnesses is as follows : Witnesses of recovery : 7. PW9-DSP Surjit Singh, who states that on 8.8.1997 one constable had come to him with ruqqa (Ex. PD) at about 5.20 P.M.; that he made his endorsement (Ex. PD/1) thereon and sent it for lodging the DDR; that at about 5.40 P.M. he received a telephonic message from a constable from the place of occurrence, informing him that the vehicle was intercepted, for which a message was already sent to him and his presence was required; that he then reached the spot at 5.50 P.M.; that after apprising the appellant and his co-accused of his status, he gave a notice (Ex. PM) to both of them and after obtaining their reply, he instructed Inspector Mani Ram to conduct the search of the van; that during search contraband was recovered from ten small cloth bags kept in the raxine bag. 8. PW10 is Mukesh Kumar son of Faquir Chand, who is also a witness to be recovery. PM) to both of them and after obtaining their reply, he instructed Inspector Mani Ram to conduct the search of the van; that during search contraband was recovered from ten small cloth bags kept in the raxine bag. 8. PW10 is Mukesh Kumar son of Faquir Chand, who is also a witness to be recovery. He states that after he had joined the raiding party, a naka was laid at Palsora Colony turning and after the van was intercepted, the recovery of contraband was effected from a bag in the presence of the police officials and one Kuldip Kumar. 9. PW12 is Inspector Mani Ram, the Investigating Officer, whose investigation has already been alluded to in the preceding paras. 10. PW14 is Kuldip Kumar, another independent witness of recovery, who has not supported the case of the prosecution. He was consequently declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned State counsel. Other witnesses with regard to the van : 11. PW-4 Harish Sharma states that in the year 1995 he had purchased a Maruti Van No. PB-02-K-3968 through a broker known as Satyam Motors; that the said van was got from one M/s. Thukral Motors and it remained registered in latters name and was never got transferred in his name; that the van was thereafter sold to one Ajay Nayar of Pathankot and he had received a receipt (Ex. PJ) with regard to the said sale. 12. PW-8 HC Sarwan Ram of Chandigarh Police, who during investigation had gone to Amritsar to verify ownership of the said Maruti van and obtained the endorsements (Ex. PK/1 and Ex. PK/2) from the Registering Authority, Amritsar. 13. PW13 is Gurnam Singh, a Clerk from the office of District Transport Office, Amritsar, who endorses his signatures over Ex. PK/2. 14. PW15 Baij Nath Thukral is the proprietor of M/s. Thukral Motors Amritsar, who states that he had sold the said Maruti van to one M/s. Satyam Motors, whose owner is Tilak Raj. He further states that the said van was sold to Satyam Motors through Harish Chander and a receipt was also prepared. Other formal witnesses : 15. PW1 Sukhminder Kaur, Senior Scientific Officer/Chemical Examiner, who proves the report Ex. PA regarding all the samples sent to her for analysis. According to her all the samples were intact and on examination, heroin was detected in all the ten exhibits. 16. Other formal witnesses : 15. PW1 Sukhminder Kaur, Senior Scientific Officer/Chemical Examiner, who proves the report Ex. PA regarding all the samples sent to her for analysis. According to her all the samples were intact and on examination, heroin was detected in all the ten exhibits. 16. PW2 HC Baljit Singh and PW3 Constable Dalbir Singh have tendered their affidavits-Exs. PB and PC respectively to prove the link evidence. 17. PW5 Constable Yashpal had prepared the scaled site plan (Ex. PE) of the place of recovery. 18. PW6 HC Mange Ram has proved copies of the Daily Dairy Report. 19. PW11 is Dr. Deepak Bakshi, who on 11.8.1997 at the request of police (Ex. PR) had medico-legally examined both the accused. He did not find any mark of external injury on their person. 20. The plea taken by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that he was arrested in the morning of 8.8.1997 from his village Bagga Kalan by one SI Jagir Singh, who was accompanied by some other police officials; that thereafter the police had brought him to the house of one Sunil Kumar, who was also taken into custody; that SI Jagir Singh had made a telephonic call from STD from near New Realto Cinema Amritsar to police post Maloya; that another call was also made from some telephone near Nawan Kote to a police station at Chandigarh; that he was innocent and was falsely implicated in this case. 21. In his defence, the appellants examined two witnesses : DW1 Mangal Singh of village Bagga Kalan deposed that on 8.8.1997 at 5.15 PM, the appellant was taken in to custody by SI Jagir Singh and other police officials and that the police was from Chandigarh. DW2 is Narinder Pal Singh resident of village Sharifpura (Amritsar), who talks about the arrest of Sunil Kumar on 8.8.1997 from his house. 22. We have heard Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Gautam Dutt, Standing counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh. With their assistance, we have gone through the entire evidence and other relevant documents on the trial Court record. 23. At the very out-set, Mr. 22. We have heard Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Gautam Dutt, Standing counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh. With their assistance, we have gone through the entire evidence and other relevant documents on the trial Court record. 23. At the very out-set, Mr. Cheema contends that whole of the controversy centres round the factum of conscious possession over the contraband and if the prosecution is not able to prove it, the case must fall to the ground irrespective of the heavy quantity of recovery. He has, in fact, heavily relied upon this concept alone, submitting that while preparing the balance sheet of the prosecution case vis-a-vis the infirmities crept in its case; the only point showing a favouring tilt towards the prosecution is that of a heavy recovery of the contraband (heroin); that otherwise the case of the prosecution suffers from inherent infirmities rendering it unbelievable. Dwelling upon his arguments, Mr. Cheema straightway opens his attack on the investigation contending that Inspector Mani Ram, the Investigating Officer, who is the star witness, does not give the timing of receipt of secret information in the initial ruqqa (Ex. PD) to his senior officer through Constable Krishan Pal. He then states that in order to overcome this weakness, Inspector Mani Ram for the first time, in his examination-in-chief states that he received the said secret information at 4.20 PM about the Maruti van entering Chandigarh carrying the contraband; that this witness then comes up with another timing of actual interception of the van and the same is shown as 4.45 PM, which is no where mentioned, even in the ruqqa (Ex. PS), which becomes basis of the formal FIR recorded at 8.30 PM. in Sector 39 police station. All these improvements have been done by the Investigating Officer so as to make the prosecution story plausible. In the same strain, Mr. Cheema contends that the FIR is shown to have been recorded at 8.30 P.M. as is clear from the list printed column of the formal FIR and the special report received by the Illaqa Magistrate is at 11.30 A.M. on the next day. In the same strain, Mr. Cheema contends that the FIR is shown to have been recorded at 8.30 P.M. as is clear from the list printed column of the formal FIR and the special report received by the Illaqa Magistrate is at 11.30 A.M. on the next day. In the case of heavy recovery being effected, the Illaqa Magistrate was not even informed immediately through a special messenger, which again indicates that in fact no contraband was recovered from the Palsora Colony turning at the time alleged and everything was done in the police station itself. 24. Mr. Cheema then makes an attempt to show doubt in the investigation yet from another angle, contending that in the original FIR, the date and hour of the occurrence is shown as 8.8.1997 at about 5.30 P.M., whereas according to the ruqqa (Ex. PD), the timing of sending intimation regarding receipt of secret information to DSP Surjit Singh is 5.00 P.M. and the DDR is recorded at 6.40 P.M. From this, he develops that in fact the story as put forth by Inspector Mani Ram that he had received a secret information at 4.20 PM again is a concocted version as by 4.45 PM he had already intercepted the van. This indicates that the ruqqa (Ex. PD) is sent after the van is intercepted. According to the learned counsel, very cleverly these formalities were done by Inspector Mani Ram in order to show the compliance of Section 57 of the Act but has failed in it. He has drawn our attention to the cross-examination of this witness, wherein he states that Krishan Pal, who was sent with the ruqqa to DSP Surjit Singh had returned to the spot at 5.15 PM, whereas the DDR entry No. 39 (Ex. PF) indicates that it was recorded at 6.40 PM and at that time Constable Krishan Pal (No. 3122) is shown to be present in police station Sector 39 Chandigarh along with ruqqa. According to Mr. Cheema, these two timings do not reconcile with each other and this infirmity again would be indicative of the fact that all the formalities were effected in the police station itself. 25. Mr. According to Mr. Cheema, these two timings do not reconcile with each other and this infirmity again would be indicative of the fact that all the formalities were effected in the police station itself. 25. Mr. Cheema once again while taking us through the cross-examination of PW-12 Inspector Mani Ram, wherein he states that before arrival of the DSP, the accused were not asked to get down from the van, contends that the story as projected now is that Inspector Mani Ram did not want to take any action against the appellant or his co-accused Sunil just to show the conscious possession of both over the contraband. 26. In order to highlight the other infirmities in the investigation, Mr. Cheema has drawn our attention to the statement of DSP Surjit Singh and submits that in fact a forgery has been committed to a very material document Ex. PM with regard to certain words, which have been interpolated subsequently, may be in order to show the compliance of Section 50 of the Act. He has taken us through this document (Ex. PM) at page 87 of the trial Court file. (We have encircled those words with red pen). The learned counsel wants to suggest that if the police officials can go to the extent of forgoing a document to suit the prosecution version, the whole of the investigation should be outrightly thrown out. In order to strengthen his plea that all the paper work was done in the police station itself, Mr. Cheema has drawn our attention to the statement of PW10 Mukesh Kumar, another independent witness to the recovery, who has stated in cross-examination that entire weighing work was done in police station Sector 39 Chandigarh. This witness further states that the accused were interrogated at the spot and after arrest they were brought to the police station. According to the learned counsel this also indicates that in fact nothing had happened at Palsora Colony turning as alleged by the prosecution and that in fact both the accused were illegally detained by the police, brought to police station, where the contraband was planted upon them after completing the formalities of the Act. Another independent witness Kulidip Kumar (PW-14) has otherwise been declared hostile. 27. Mr. Another independent witness Kulidip Kumar (PW-14) has otherwise been declared hostile. 27. Mr. Cheema then contends that from all these infirmities in the prosecution case if taken collectively and then seen in the light of the defence set-up by the appellant, it can be safely inferred that the conscious possession of the appellant qua the contraband is not proved to the hilt and he has been falsely implicated in this case. 28. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Cheema asks for acquittal of the appellant. 29. In the alternative, Mr. Cheema prays for reduction in quantum of sentence, contending that in the instant case, the investigation agency has not made any effort to trace out the origin from where the contraband was being brought, despite the fact that the recovery was very heavy, rather mega heavy quantity. The supplier and the origin, according to the learned counsel, has been kept concealed. The recovery of a pretty amount of Rs. 1300/- from the appellant and Rs. 700/- from Sunil Kumar, as is evident from the statement of Inspector Mani Ram itself speaks volumes of the fact that actually they were not indulging in sale and purchase of the contraband. 30. Mr. Cheema contends that the investigation with regard to the registered ownership of the van is also not clear and the fact remains that it does not belong to the appellant or his co-accused Sunil even. Another mitigating circumstance, according to the learned counsel, in favour of the appellant is that he was hardly of the age of 22 years at the time of alleged recovery and was a student; that he is in jail since the date of his arrest i.e. 8.8.1997 and by now has suffered the ordeal of more than 7 years; that he should be afforded an opportunity to prove himself to be a good citizen and the same can be done only if he is kept with the other criminals in the jail for minimum time. 31. Repudiating the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Gautam Dutt, learned Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh contends that there is no reason to disbelieve testimony of the police officials, including a superior police officer (DSP Surjit Singh) who were acting in the discharge of their official duties. 31. Repudiating the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Gautam Dutt, learned Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh contends that there is no reason to disbelieve testimony of the police officials, including a superior police officer (DSP Surjit Singh) who were acting in the discharge of their official duties. Even otherwise, the recovery of the contraband was effected in the presence of PW10 Mukesh Kumar, independent witness; that even if PW14 Kuldip Kumar the other independent witness has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile, this would again be not a ground to discard the prosecution story in its entirety especially in a case of heavy recovery; that there can be no reason for Inspector Mani Ram or even DSP Surjit Singh to falsely implicate the present appellant; that even otherwise there is compliance of all the mandatory provisions of the Act in this case and as such the appellant has no escape. 32. With regard to quantum of sentence, the learned State counsel contends that since the appellant was carrying a huge quantity of heroin in the van, he does not deserve any lenient view. 33. After considering rival contentions of either side and reviewing the entire evidence on record, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to bring home guilt to the appellant. Our detailed discussion for arriving at the said conclusion is rendered below : 34. Since Mr. Cheema has attacked the investigation contending only that no recovery was effected at Palsora Colony turning as alleged by the prosecution and all the writing job has been done in the police station itself, we have thought of meeting all his submissions at seriatim. 35. Mr. Cheema has stressed his veins mainly highlighting the contradictions in the exact timing of receipt of initial ruqqa (Ex. PD), attracting the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, sent by the Investigating Officer to the Senior Officer (DSP Surjit Singh) and even the second ruqqa (Ex. PS) sent for registration of the formal FIR. We, in this regard, have very minutely seen the original documents from the trial court records. The timing given in Ex. PD), attracting the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, sent by the Investigating Officer to the Senior Officer (DSP Surjit Singh) and even the second ruqqa (Ex. PS) sent for registration of the formal FIR. We, in this regard, have very minutely seen the original documents from the trial court records. The timing given in Ex. PD is 5-00 P.M. There is a nothing on the said ruqqa in the hand of DSP Surjit Singh, which is of the same day, directing to lodge the report in the Daily Diary with regard to the information. For reference, the noting is reproduced below : "D/Officer, Police Station Sector 39 - Lodge the report in Daily Diary regarding the information in police station Sector 39." 36. There is another noting by the concerned official of police station Sector 39 Chandigarh indicating that DDR No. 39 has been lodged at 6.40 P.M. Let us re-examine the substantive statement of PW-9 DSP Surjit Singh in this regard. He states that he had received the ruqqa (Ex./PD) from one Constable at 5.20 P.M. This statement co-relates with the timing shown in Ex. PD. Inspector Mani Ram receives the secret information while he was present near Dadu Majra Colony turning. He sends the ruqqa through Constable Krishan Pal. In all probabilities Krishan Pal must have taken about 20 minutes in delivering the said ruqqa to DSP Surjit Singh. Mr. Cheema has made an attempt to dig out a lot from DDR entry No. 39 recorded at 6.40 P.M. wherein the factum of presence of Constable Krishan Pal is mentioned. On the other hand, Inspector Mani Ram in his cross-examination states that Krishan Pal had returned to the spot at 5.15 P.M. In our considered view, the appellant cannot make any capital out of it, as the statement made by Inspector Mani Ram with regard to timing is a casual statement, which is of no damage to the prosecution, as it is against the very ruqqa (Ex. PD), which was sent at 5.00 P.M. PW12 Inspector Mani Ram is his cross-examination even states that Constable Krishan Pal was sent with ruqqa to the DSP at 4.30 P.M. We are surprised that an Investigating Officer, who effected a huge recovery of contraband in this case picked up the courage to make an irresponsible statement on oath before the Court, knowing very well that the ruqqa (Ex. PD) scribed by him indicates the time as 5.00 P.M. We have noticed the same conduct of this Investigating Officer even in his examination-in-chief where he states that the Maruti Van No. PB-02-K-3968 of white colour was seen coming from the side of Mohali barrier at 4.45 P.M. This is again against the initial ruqqa. We, however, do not attach any importance to the discrepancies creeping in the prosecution case with regard to timing of sending of initial ruqqa to the senior police officer. To be more sure on this aspect, we have once again perused the statement of DSP Surjit Singh, a responsible police officer, who is very categoric in stating that after he made the endorsement (Ex. PE) on the ruqqa (Ex. PD), he received another telephonic message at 5.40 P.M. from a constable to the effect that the vehicle was intercepted, for which the message was already sent and the SHO was requiring his presence at the spot. Even in his cross-examination, this witness stuck to the same timing. The defence counsel made a gruelling cross-examination on this material witness of recovery but could not churn out any favourable material thereby. We, for our satisfaction, have perused the ruqqa (Ex. PS) sent by Inspector Mani Ram for registration of the formal FIR after effecting the recovery of the contraband and completing all the formalities. The noting on this ruqqa indicates that it was sent at 7.25 P.M. from Palsora Colony turning, Sector 39, Chandigarh. It needs to be mentioned here that in the original ruqqa (Ex. PS), which is on pages 99 to 102 of the lower court records, the aforesaid timing (7.25 P.M.) is mentioned, whereas we do not find timing of sending the ruqqa on the paper book prepared. At this juncture, we leave a note of concern that the concerned official(s) of the concerned branch of Session Court or even of this Court has/have not taken any pains to cross check the paper book from the original record. It is certainly a lapse on their part. Admittedly, in the original FIR, the timing shown in column No. 1 (Data & hour when reported) is 8.30 P.M. vide DDR No. 42 dated 8.8.1997. It is certainly a lapse on their part. Admittedly, in the original FIR, the timing shown in column No. 1 (Data & hour when reported) is 8.30 P.M. vide DDR No. 42 dated 8.8.1997. This indicates that the ruqqa sent at 7.25 P.M. by Inspector Mani Ram reached the concerned police station within a short span of time and DDR No. 42 was completed at 8.30 P.M. This fact we have verified even from the original ruqqa (Ex. PS) where SI/SHO Balhar Singh, police station Sector 39 Chandigarh who has appended a note to the following effect :- "Vide DDR No. 42 dated 8.8.1997 at 8.30 P.M. case FIR No. 177 of 1997 under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, police station Sector 39, Chandigarh has been registered." 37. No doubt, the concerned Illaqa Magistrate was informed on the next day i.e. 9.8.1997 at 11.30 A.M. but from all the police proceedings (Karvai police), we find that the present case was not to be taken as a special report case. This appears to be the reason that on the next day, in routine the FIR reached the Illaqa Magistrate (Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Chandigarh). 38. At the same time, we would also like to meet another attack made by Mr. Cheema with regard to the entry shown as 5.30 P.M. in the printed column "Date and hour of occurrence". We do not find any infirmity in the same. The van is intercepted within a few minutes after the ruqqa is sent at 5.00 P.M. and thereafter DSP Surjit Singh is informed through a Constable around 5.40 P.M. It appears to us that the time of interception of the Maruti van is shown as hour of occurrence in the said column. This, in our mind, would not make any difference so as to discard the recovery. 39. We, in the same streamline of discussion are also meeting another argument of Mr. Cheema where the factum of presence of Constable Krishan Pal is mentioned in DDR No. 39, which is recorded at 6.40 P.M. In this regard, we have seen the cross-examination of Constable Krishan Pal (No. 3122), who states that after getting the DDR recorded, he went to Palsora Colony turning, which is known as Nursery turn and had reached there at 6.30 P.M. as per his memory. The exact reply given by him is as follows : "After getting the DDR recorded, I went to Palsora Colony turning, which is also known as Nursery Chowk. I had reached there at 6.30 P.M. as far as I remember." 40. Admittedly, the DDR is recorded at 6.40 P.M. In case some margin is given to this witness as he has given the time of reaching at the place of recovery by rough estimate on account of effllux of time and not strictly by watch, there remains no doubt that the DDR was recorded at the time given in it and not at any time before or after it. The statement of Constable Krishan Pal thus washes away the statement of Inspector Mani Ram on this aspect. 41. Taking into account the aforesaid discussion, it can be safely concluded that Inspector Mani Ram received the secret information around 5.00 P.M., which was reduced into writing in the shape of a ruqqa (Ex. PD) sent to DSP Surjit Singh at 5.00 P.M. It reached the office of DSP Surjit Singh at about 5.20 P.M. and thereafter DDR No. 39 (Ex. PF) was recorded. We thus find no infirmity in the investigation conducted in this case. 42. Much has been said by Mr. Cheema on the document Ex. PM prepared by DSP Surjit Singh. It has, however, no relevance for the purposes or deciding the present appeal as the same was prepared to show the compliance of Section 50 of the Act because the latest position now settled by the various pronouncements of Honble Supreme Court is that in a situation where the recovery is effected from a vehicle, the compliance of Section 50 is not attracted. Since Mr. Cheema has attacked this document, submitting that a forgery has been committed with it inasmuch as certain words have been changed, we also feel that the said argument should be met by us. 43. We have very minutely seen the exact words. It appears that initially it was written that an offer was given to the appellant and his co-accused Sunil for getting the search of the vehicle conducted by DSP Surjit Singh. The earlier words were :- "Apko mujhse apni gadi ki talasi dene men koi itraz to nnahi hai ?" 44. 43. We have very minutely seen the exact words. It appears that initially it was written that an offer was given to the appellant and his co-accused Sunil for getting the search of the vehicle conducted by DSP Surjit Singh. The earlier words were :- "Apko mujhse apni gadi ki talasi dene men koi itraz to nnahi hai ?" 44. The changed words now show that the offer is made more clear by adding some words regarding the search to be conducted in the presence of DSP or the Magistrate. The added words now can be read as under : "Apko mujhse va Magistrate se apni gadi ki talasi dene men koi itraz to nahi hai ?" 45. In this regard, we have seen the cross-examination of DSP Surjit Singh, where he states that there is no overwriting over the words "Mujhse va Magistrate se". He states that the memo. Ex. PM is in his own handwriting. We are also of the view that the document Ex. PM does not go to show that any forgery has been committed with it. No doubt, at a particular pointed out place, 2/3 words are written more closely as compared to the other words, but the main idea at that time was to apprise the appellant and his co-accused of their statutory right of Section 50 of the Act available to them. At the cost of repetition, we may say again that Ex. PM otherwise is of no value at this stage. The argument advanced by Mr. Cheema in this behalf thus lends no support to his case. 46. No doubt, one of the independent witnesses namely Kuldip Kumar (PW14) has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile, yet besides the statements of the police officials including that of a senior police officer of the rank of DSP, the prosecution case gets support from the evidence of another independent witness namely Mukesh Kumar (PW10), who is attesting witness to almost all the recovery memos. Mr. Cheema in order to demolish the case of the prosecution has touched upon the statement of this witness, pointing out that he has deposed that his statement was recorded in the police station; that the accused were interrogated at the spot after their arrest and thereafter they were brought to the police station. 47. Mr. Cheema in order to demolish the case of the prosecution has touched upon the statement of this witness, pointing out that he has deposed that his statement was recorded in the police station; that the accused were interrogated at the spot after their arrest and thereafter they were brought to the police station. 47. We are not inclined to give any importance to this piece of evidence. If his statement is read in one go, it shows that after the recovery was effected and completing the entire proceedings of weighing and putting the contraband into parcels, his statement was recorded in the police station. We have to give some latitude to the investigation also in this regard. Sometimes, the Investigating Officer feels that the main part of the investigation has been done and the statement of the concerned witnesses, who have already attested the recovery memos can be recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the police station itself. No doubt, Mukesh Kumar states that the accused were interrogated at the spot and after their arrest, they were brought to the police station, this does not mean that no police proceedings were done at the spot. In the same breath, this witness again states that the Karvai was done at the spot and after interrogation, the smack was weighed. He is otherwise giving the timing of reaching the police station at 10.30 P.M. No doubt he states, "other Karvai was also done in the police station". But this statement in a simpleton manner would not be considered by us as to disbelieve outrightly the recovery effected at a particular point i.e. Palsora colony turning. Consequently, we also reject this limb of argument advanced by Mr. Cheema. 48. In an attempt to attack the prosecution case on the point of conscious possession, the learned counsel has half-heartedly argued that in order to prove the conscious possession qua the contraband, the deposition of star witnesses namely Inspector Mani Ram and DSP Surjit Singh is consistent to the effect that after the van was intercepted till DSP Surjit Singh reached the spot, the appellant and his co-accused Sunil remained sitting in the car, putting their one hand each on the bag kept in between them. 49. 49. This argument loses its force in the light of the latest judgment rendered by Honble Apex Court in Madan Lal and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2003(4) RCR(Cri.) 100 (SC) wherein their Lordships in the same set of circumstances have held as under : "23. The expression `possession is a polymorphous term which assumes different colours in different contexts. It may carry different meanings in contextually different backgrounds. It is impossible, as was observed in Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others, AIR 1980 SC 52 to work out a completely logical and precise definition of `possession uniformly applicable to all situations in the context of all statutes. 24. The word `conscious means awareness about a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended. 25. As noted in Gunwantlal v. The State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 1756 possession in a given case need not be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and control over the article in case in question, while the person whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power. 26. The word `expression means the legal right to possession (See Health v. Drown, 1972(2) All ER 561 (HL). In an interesting case it was observed that where a person keeps his fire arm in his mothers flat which is safer than his own home, he must be considered to be in possession of the same. 27. Once possession is established the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles". 50. No other point has been pressed into for our adjudication. 51. The aforesaid discussion leads us to an irresistible and unequivocal conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable shadow of doubt that the appellant and his co-accused Sunil (died during trial) were found in control of 9 Kgs. 165 Grams of heroin in their conscious possession without any permit or licence in Maruti Van No. PB-02-K-3968, intercepted by the police. 165 Grams of heroin in their conscious possession without any permit or licence in Maruti Van No. PB-02-K-3968, intercepted by the police. Consequently the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the learned Judge, Special Court, Chandigarh is hereby upheld. 52. We have also considered the case of the appellant with regard to quantum of sentence and find that he does not deserve any sympathetic tilt by this Court on this count. 53. No doubt, a sincere effort has not been made by the investigating agency to trace out the origin from where this consignment was sent. The supplier and the origin, as contended by Mr. Cheema, is in the dark. We also leave a note of concern about it. While the appellant and his co-accused Sunil were in police custody, a deep probe could be made about the supplier. However, the investigation is lacking in this regard. 54. We have also considered another aspect put forth by Mr. Cheema that from a very petty recovery of Rs. 1,300/- from the appellant and Rs. 700/- from his co-accused during jamatalashi is indicative of the fact that the appellant was just a carrier, who was deputed to leave the consignment by the original supplier or any body else at his instance to a particular place, may be Chandigarh or around. But even this aspect cannot be taken into account for diluting the sentence. In a very recent judgment of Honble Apex Court rendered in Union of India v. Kuldeep Singh, 2004(1) RCR(Crl.) 89 (SC), while dealing with a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, a few guide-lines have been enumerated by their Lordships to award sentence, holding that sentencing process should be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. While dealing with the exercise of discretion of the Court, their Lordships have further held in the aforesaid decision that it must be done with sound discretion and must be a result of judicial thinking. 55. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances in the instant case especially the heavy quantity of recovery from the appellant and following the ratio of the decision in Union of India v. Kuldeep Singhs case (supra), in our view the appellant does not deserve even the least sympathy of this Court with regard to quantum of sentence. 55. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances in the instant case especially the heavy quantity of recovery from the appellant and following the ratio of the decision in Union of India v. Kuldeep Singhs case (supra), in our view the appellant does not deserve even the least sympathy of this Court with regard to quantum of sentence. Consequently, the sentence of 15 years RI as awarded by the learned trial Court is upheld. 56. Resultantly, the present appeal fails on both the counts and is hereby dismissed, being devoid of any merit.