Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 282 (HP)

DINESH KUMAR v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2004-10-18

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, R.L.KHURANA

body2004
JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—Both these appeals arise from single judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2003, they can, therefore, be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The appellants Dinesh Kumar and Dehal Singh hereinafter referred to as accused have challenged the judgment and order dated 27.11.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, convicting them under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act) and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each and to pay a fine of rupees one lac each and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further period of four years. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows:— 4. On 18.10.2002 at about 9.20 a.m. PW-16 Brijesh Sood, S.H.O. Police Station, Sundernagar alongwith ASI Madan Lal, PW-8 Additional MHC Rajender Kumar, H.C. Pushap Raj, H.C. Chet Ram, Constable Parmar Chand and Constable Nand Lal was holding Nakabandi at Lalit Chowk, Sundernagar, District Mandi. PW-16 received a secret information that one car bearing registration No. HP-34-7700 was coming from Mandi side in which two persons were carrying huge quantity of Charas. The said information was reduced into writing Ext.PL/2 and intimation under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act Ext.PL was sent to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Mandi on the same day. At about 10 a.m. one Maruti Esteem car white in colour bearing registration No. HP-34-7700 came from Mandi side which was got stopped by PW-16. There were two persons sitting in the car including the driver. On enquiry made by PW-16, the person who was driving the car disclosed his name as Dehal Singh son of Amar Singh r/o Katrain, Distt. Kullu and the other person sitting on front seat by the side of the driver disclosed his name as Dinesh Kumar r/o Goa. Both these persons are the accused in this case. In the presence of PW1 Vikas Gupta and PW-2 Surender Sharma, the Investigating Officer gave option in writing Ext. PA to the accused persons whether they wanted to give personal search or search of the vehicle before a Magistrate or a Senior Police Officer. Both the accused expressed their consent vide Ext.PA/1 and Ext.PA/2 to be searched by PW-16. In the presence of PW1 Vikas Gupta and PW-2 Surender Sharma, the Investigating Officer gave option in writing Ext. PA to the accused persons whether they wanted to give personal search or search of the vehicle before a Magistrate or a Senior Police Officer. Both the accused expressed their consent vide Ext.PA/1 and Ext.PA/2 to be searched by PW-16. PW-16 thereafter searched the car and the luggage which was lying inside the car. Nothing incriminating article was recovered from the search of the car and luggage. PW-16 sent his driver PW-3 HHC Churamani to call a Mechanic to the spot for checking the windows/doors of the car from inside after opening the shields. PW-3 brought Harnam Singh Mechanic who is running a workshop at Sundernagar. On opening the shields of the windows/doors of the car, packets of brown colour were found having been concealed between the shields and doors wrapped with black and red adhesive tape. On opening the packets Charas in the shape of stick and chappaties was detected. The packets of Charas were taken out from the doors/windows and were put in the bag of the accused. PW-3 was sent by PW-16 to bring weighing scale and weight. PW-3 brought weighing scale and weight from the grossery shop of PW-5 Ram Lal. On weighment, 27 Kg. 800 grams Charas was found. The entire bullk of the Charas was mixed up and two samples of 50 grams each were taken out separately. The samples were sealed in two different parcels with seal impression H. The specimen seals were taken separately, one of which is Ext.PB bearing signature of PW-16, the seal after use was given to PW-1. 5. Dehal Singh accused produced before the Investigating-Officer the Registration Certificate Ext-Pl, Driving Licence Ext.P-2 and Insurance Policy Ext.P-3 alongwith Key of the car. The documents of the vehicle and parcels of the Charas were taken into possession vide Memo Ext.PC which bears the signature of PW-1 and PW-2 and one copy thereof was handed over to the accused. PW-16 thereafter took into possession the luggage found in the car alongwith mobile phone vide memo Ext.PD. Rukka Ext.PM was sent to Police Station, Sundernagar for registration of case through Head Constable Chet Ram. PW-16 prepared the spot map Ext. PS. Grounds of arrest were supplied to the accused, vice memo Ext.PE. The accused persons were arrested on the spot. PW-16 thereafter took into possession the luggage found in the car alongwith mobile phone vide memo Ext.PD. Rukka Ext.PM was sent to Police Station, Sundernagar for registration of case through Head Constable Chet Ram. PW-16 prepared the spot map Ext. PS. Grounds of arrest were supplied to the accused, vice memo Ext.PE. The accused persons were arrested on the spot. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. NCB form Ext. PV in triplicate was filled up at the spot. The accused persons and the case property were taken to the Police Station, where the personal search of the accused was conducted. The sample parcels bulk Charas and other articles recovered from the personal search of the accused persons were deposited with PW-8 Additional MHC Rajinder Kumar for safe custody. On the basis of Rukka Ext. PM, FIR Ext.PN was recorded by PW-11 MHC Sanjay Kumar. On 19.10.2002 PW-16 prepared Special report Ext.PF, under Section 57 of the NDPS Act. PW-11 sent the Special report to the Superintendent of Police on 20.10.2002 at 6 a.m. through PW-12 constable Nand Lal. During investigation, PW-16 collected the details of the telephones of Dehal Singh and his wife Smt. Kaushlya Devi on 21.10.2002 at 8.55 p.m. Dinesh accused was medically examined by PW-14 Dr. H.K. Abrol, Medical Officer posted at S.D.H. Sundernagar. Dinesh accused was advised to be taken to the physician. PW-13 Dr.Y.K. Sood, Medical Officer of Suket Hospital Sundernagar examined Dinesh accused who remained admitted in the Hospital w.e.f. 23.10.2002 to 25.10.2002. Dinesh accused was found by Dr. Y.K. Sood agitated and was suspected to have withdrawal syndrome of some drug. The vehicle was released in favour of Dehal Singh accused and other articles except mobile phone and cash amounts were got released in favour of the accused persons. On 25.10.2002 vide RC No. 278-02 Ext.PK., PW-8 Rajinder Kumar, Additional MHC, Police Station, Sundernagar sent one parcel of the sealed packet to the Chemical Examiner CTL Kandaghat. On analysis of the sample, Chemical Examiner vide report Ext-PAA found the contents of the packet to be that of Charas. On completion of the investigation and on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, PW-16 Lald charge sheet against the accused before the trial Court for the commission of the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act for having been in possession of 27 Kg. 800 grams of Charas. On completion of the investigation and on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, PW-16 Lald charge sheet against the accused before the trial Court for the commission of the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act for having been in possession of 27 Kg. 800 grams of Charas. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as 16 witnesses. 7. Dehal Singh Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that Dinesh co-accused had taken lift from him in his car from Kullu to Delhi. They have pleaded their innocence and false implication. In reply to question No. 32, both the accused pleaded:— "I am innocent. No Charas was recovered from the car. In fact, Charas was recovered from the top of a bus which was behind our car since the culprits were not caught. Therefore, this false case was foisted on us as there was false information about us". 8. The learned trial Judge, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence coming on record, came to the conclusion that case under Section 20 of the NDPS Act stood proved against both the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, vide judgment dated 27.11.2003 convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforesaid. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon them, the accused have filed these two separate appeals. 10. Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate appearing for Dinesh Kumar accused and Mr. J.S. Bhasin, Advocate for Dehal Singh accused during the course of the hearing of these appeals have assailed the impugned judgment on the following common grounds:— 1. That the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge is vitiated for non-compliance of Section 42(2) and Section 57 of the NDPS Act. 2. That the prosecution has not proved the recovery of Charas from the conscious possession of the accused. 3. That the evidence of the independent witnesses PWs 1 and 2 is not reliable and not acceptable as they are interested and stock witnesses of the prosecution. 4. That there is no link evidence to connect the bulk Charas, allegedly seized with the sample which was analyzed by the Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat. Mr. 3. That the evidence of the independent witnesses PWs 1 and 2 is not reliable and not acceptable as they are interested and stock witnesses of the prosecution. 4. That there is no link evidence to connect the bulk Charas, allegedly seized with the sample which was analyzed by the Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat. Mr. J.S. Bhasin, Advocate further submited that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the sample and bulk quantity of the Charas was never put to Dehal Singh accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, therefore, the conviction of the accused is bad in law. GROUND NO. 1 11. In so far the first ground of attack is concerned, the learned counsel for the accused persons have taken us through the evidence of relevant witnesses. It is the evidence of PW-16 Brijesh Sood, Station House Officer, Sundernagar that on 18.10.2002 at about 9.15 a.m. when he alongwith ASI Madan Lal, H.C. Rajinder Kumar, H.C. Pushap Raj, H.C. Chet Ram, constable Parmar Chand and constable Nand Lal was on Nakabandi at Lalit Chowk, Sundernagar, he received a secret information that two persons were coming from Mandi side in a Car carrying Charas. He reduced the said information into writing Ext.PL/2. The information was sent to the Superintendent of Police, a copy whereof Ext.PR was retained by him. When Maruti Esteem Car white in colour coming from Mandi side was stopped by him at about 10 a.m. at Lalit Chowk, Sundernagar, two persons namely Dehal Singh and Dinesh Kumar accused were sitting therein. Dehal Singh accused was driving the car and co-accused Dinesh Kumar was sitting by his side on the front seat. PW-16 joined two independent witnesses namely PW-1 Vikas Gupta and PW-2 Surender Sharma in the raiding party. Option was given to the accused persons whether they wanted to be searched before a Magistrate or a Senior Police officer. Both the accused persons expressed their consent for their personal search and search of the vehicle by PW-16. Their consent was recorded in writing vide Ext. PA: The luggage of the accused persons lying inside the car was searched but nothing incriminating was found therein. PW-3 HHC Churamani was sent by PW-16 to call a Mechanic for checking the windows/doors of the car from inside after opening their shields. Their consent was recorded in writing vide Ext. PA: The luggage of the accused persons lying inside the car was searched but nothing incriminating was found therein. PW-3 HHC Churamani was sent by PW-16 to call a Mechanic for checking the windows/doors of the car from inside after opening their shields. PW-7 Harnam Singh who is running workshop at Sundernagar came on the spot. He opened the shields of all the four doors of the car. On opening the shields of the doors many packets concealed inside the empty parts of the door between the shield and door which were wrapped with black and red adhesive tape were found. In the packets Charas in the shape of sticks and round black in colour was found. On weighment of the Charas was found to be 27 Kg. 800 grams in all. PW-16 sent the copy of intimation recorded under Section 42(2) of NDPS Act Ext.PL/2 to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Mandi at 9.30 a.m. on 18.10.2002 through PW-12 constable Nand Lal. On 19.10.2002 Additional Superintendent of Police handed over the copy Ext.PL to PW-10 Jeet Ram who at the relevant time was posted as Assistant Reader in his office with his endorsement. PW-10 produced the attested copy of Ext.PL/1 in the Court. The Investigating Officer on 19.10.2002 prepared Special Report Ext.PF under Section 57 of NDPS Act and sent the same to the Superintendent of Police, Mandi. The copy of the Special Report Ext.PF was received by Superintendent of Police on 20.10.2002 vide Ext.PF/1 which was handed over to Reader who endorsed the said copy vide Ext.PF/2. 12. The learned counsel for the accused persons contended that the information under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act was not sent by PW-16 to his immediate official superior i.e. Dy. Superintendent of Police, therefore, the prosecution has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the whole trial of the accused is vitiated. It is not in dispute that the Superintendent of Police or Additional Superintendent of Police is the immediate official superior to the Dy. Superintendent of Police. It has come in the cross-examination of PW-16 that at the relevant time there was a post of Dy. Superintendent of Police at Sundernagar, but the Dy. Superintendent of Police was on Dussehra duty on the day of occurrence. He admitted that Dy. Superintendent of Police. It has come in the cross-examination of PW-16 that at the relevant time there was a post of Dy. Superintendent of Police at Sundernagar, but the Dy. Superintendent of Police was on Dussehra duty on the day of occurrence. He admitted that Dy. Superintendent of Police posted at Sundernagar is his immediate official superior and in his absence, Additional Superintendent of Police is his immediate official superior. Thus we are not inclined to accept the first ground of attack raised by learned counsel for the accused persons that the prosecution has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the Act. It is well settled that the Provisions of Section 57 is directory, violation thereof would not ipso facto violate the trial or conviction of the accused persons. In the case in hand, the prosecution has complied with the said provisions by sending special report Ext.PF to the Superintendent of Police, Mandi. GROUNDS No. II 13. Coming to the second ground of attack, we have scrutinized the entire evidence on record. The evidence of PW-16 who affected the recovery of the Charas from the vehicle of Dehal Singh finds corroboration from the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-7. All these witnesses have unequivocally deposed that the Mechanic removed the shields from the windows and doors of the vehicle and from the inner part of the doors, packets of brown colour wrapped with red and black colour adhesive tape were found concealed therein. The packets were found containing Charas in the shape of sticks and chapaties. On weighment of the Charas it was found to be 27 kg. and 800 grams. Two packets of 50 grams each were taken out separately after mixing the bulk Charas. The sample packets were sealed in two different parcels and the remaining Charas was also sealed in a separate packet with seal impression H. Signatures of PW-1 and PW-2 were also taken on the sealed parcels by PW-16. The seal after use was given to PW-1. During the investigation of the case. Registration Certificate Ext.P-1 of the vehicle of Dehal Singh accused , his Driving Licence Ext.P-2 were also taken into possession. The accused persons were supplied grounds of arrest vide memo Ext.PE duly signed by PW-16 and other witnesses. PW-1 prepared the photographs of the vehicle showing recovery of Charas therein marked as Exts.P3/l to Ext.P3/16. Registration Certificate Ext.P-1 of the vehicle of Dehal Singh accused , his Driving Licence Ext.P-2 were also taken into possession. The accused persons were supplied grounds of arrest vide memo Ext.PE duly signed by PW-16 and other witnesses. PW-1 prepared the photographs of the vehicle showing recovery of Charas therein marked as Exts.P3/l to Ext.P3/16. He identified the wrapper of the parcel Ext.P-4, Charas Ext.P-5 and Ext.P-6 sample parcel. The version contained in the FIR Ex.PN and the contents of the search and memo Ext.PC are fully supported and proved by the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-16. There is nothing in their cross-examination which may create any doubt about their truthfulness. There is no allegation/suggestion that the police had any motive to falsely implicate the accused in the case. Their evidence is further corroborated by recovery of 27 Kg. 800 grams of Charas which is of huge quantity and cannot be believed to have been planted by the police with a view to falsely implicate the accused. It is not the case of the accused that they were not arrested from the spot. The accused persons have admitted in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that on the date of occurrence they were travelling in the car enroute to Delhi from Kullu. 14. It is well settled law that once possession of contraband is established, the person who cLalms that it was not in his conscious possession has to establish this plea, 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 the 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. (See Madan Lal and another v. State of H.P.) (2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 465. 15. In the factual situation of the present case, not only possession but conscious possession has been established by the prosecution. It has not been shown by the accused persons that the possession of huge quantity of Charas recovered from the vehicle in which they were travelling was not conscious in the logical background of Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act. It has not been shown by the accused persons that the possession of huge quantity of Charas recovered from the vehicle in which they were travelling was not conscious in the logical background of Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act. The evidence clearly establishes that they knew about the transportation of Charas, and each had a role in the transportation and possession with conscious knowledge of what they were doing. Thus, in view of the evidence led by the prosecution, its version regarding search, recovery and seizure of the Charas from the conscious possession of the accused persons is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, the contention raised by the accused persons under this ground is not sustainable. GROUND NO. III 16. In so far as the 3rd ground of attack is concerned nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of independent witnesses namely PW-1 Vikas Gupta and PW-2 Surender Sharma to show that they are not interested witnesses of the prosecution nor it is shown that they are in any way inimical to the accused persons to involve them in a false case. Both these witnesses are running their independent shops of photographers in Sundernagar Bazar. On the day of occurrence PW-1 was present at Lalit Chowk Sundernagar where the police personnel were also standing. Both these witnesses were asked by the Investigating Officer to join the investigation as in their presence the Car of the Dehal Singh was stopped by the police. They voluntarily and willingly joined as witnesses in the search and seizure of the contraband from the Car of the accused. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 has not been shattered or impeached by the accused in their cross-examination that they are stock witnesses of the prosecution. They have not been shown to have appeared in any other case supporting the prosecution and simply because they are running the Photographers Shops in Sundernagar Bazar near the place of occurrence and accepted the request of the Investigating Officer to join the investigation of the case as independent witnesses, they cannot be branded as interested witnesses of the prosecution. Therefore, the 3rd ground of attack of the accused persons does not merit acceptance. GROUND NO. IV 17. It was contended by learned counsel for the accused person that the link evidence of this case is missing. Therefore, the 3rd ground of attack of the accused persons does not merit acceptance. GROUND NO. IV 17. It was contended by learned counsel for the accused person that the link evidence of this case is missing. It was submitted that the seal impression H used for sealing the sample packet was not produced in the Court by PW-1 to whom it was entrusted after its use; no specimen seal of sample and NCB form were deposited in the Malkhana by PW-16 and the prosecution has failed to explain as to how the number of the First Information Report was mentioned in memo Ext.PC regarding recovery and taking into possession of Charas alongwith car HP-34-7700, memo Ext.PD regarding recovery of other articles recovered from the possession of the accused and also on NCB form Ext.PB, According to the learned counsel all those documents appeared to have been prepared by the Investigating Officer in the Police Station after registration of the case and therefore, the tampering of the sealed packets by the police official(s) in the circumstances of the present case was not ruled out and further that prosecution has failed to expLaln as to how the weight of 50 grams of sample Charas has increased to 65.5606 grams when the sample of Charas was analyzed by the Chemical Examiner as mentioned in his report Ext.PAA. 18. As already stated hereinabove. PW-16 stated that both the accused persons were arrested at the spot and thereafter they were brought alongwith the case property to Police Station, Sundernagar where personal search of the accused persons was conducted vide memos Ext.PG and Ext.PH. He filled up NCB form Ext.PB at the spot. Against column No.8 of NCB form Facsmile of the seal impression H was stated to have been attached there with. The samples were sealed with two seals with seal impression H which after use was handed over to PW-1. PW-16 thereafter deposited the parcels of the samples, bulk Charas and other articles recovered from the personal search of the accused persons and specimen seal with PW-8 Rajinder Kumar for safe custody. The evidence of PW-8 proves that he entered all the articles in the Malkhana register vide entry Ext.PJ. On 25.10.2002, vide RC No. 278-02 PW-8 sent one parcel of sample duly sealed through PW-9 HC Parmanand alongwith copy of FIR, NCB form and specimen sample seal to CTL Kandaghat. The evidence of PW-8 proves that he entered all the articles in the Malkhana register vide entry Ext.PJ. On 25.10.2002, vide RC No. 278-02 PW-8 sent one parcel of sample duly sealed through PW-9 HC Parmanand alongwith copy of FIR, NCB form and specimen sample seal to CTL Kandaghat. PWs 8 and 9 have deposed that so long the case property remained with them, they did not allow anyone to tamper with the same. It is no doubt true that the sample packets and bulk Charas alongwith specimen seal remained with PW-8 In the Malkhana till 25.10.2002 when the sample packet alongwith copy of FIR, NCB form etc. were sent to CTL Kandaghat. The accused persons have not shown that the sample packets were tampered with either by the police official or any other person. PW-8 has admitted in the cross-examination that he had not mentioned in the Malkhana register about the deposit of specimen seal. A suggestion of the accused persons that NCB form, sample seal and other case property were not deposited with him by the Investigating Officer has been emphatically denied by him. A perusal of the copy of NCB form Ext.PV shows that the column had been filled up by PW-16 who has put his signature thereon. In column 8 the date of drawl and dispatch of the sample is mentioned as 25.10.2002 which appears to be in the hand of some other person. A perusal of the abstract of Malkhana register ExtPJ shows that it contained the details of bulk Charas weighing 27 Kg. and 700 grams and two sample parcels alongwith five seals each, the samples consisted of 50 grams each and name of PW-16 Brijesh Sood who deposited the case property for safe custody. The other articles recovered from the personal search of the accused persons were also found recorded therein. Non-mentioning of the deposit of NCB form in the Malkhana register in our view cannot be said fatal to the prosecution case in any manner as the NCB form cannot be considered as case property about which an entry was required to be made in the register. The ratio of the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the parties in Sandeep Kumar v. State of H.P. [2002 (2) Shim.L.C. 224], Ms. Shriki Ravit v. State of H.P. [2002 (2) Shim. The ratio of the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the parties in Sandeep Kumar v. State of H.P. [2002 (2) Shim.L.C. 224], Ms. Shriki Ravit v. State of H.P. [2002 (2) Shim. L.C. 276] and lacopo Lombardi v. State of H.P. [2002 (2) Shim. L.C. 431] in support of the 4th ground of attack is of no help and assistance to the accused persons in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Road Certificate Ext. PK it was specifically mentioned that one parcel containing 50 grams of sample Charas sealed with five seals bearing seal mark H alongwith specimen seal H were sent for chemical tests through PW-9 H.C Parmanand. Seal imoression H was sent to the separate piece of cloth Ext.PB. The Chemical Examiner in his report Ext. PAA certified that the Seal/Seals were found intact and unbroken. Further it was certified that the Seal/Seals on the sample tallied with the specimen impression of Seal/Seals sent separately. The contents of the sample parcel was found to be Charas. When produced in the Court, as per observations of the Court, the seals on the case property was found intact. There is nothing in the statements of PWs which may create any doubt whatsoever about the safe custody of the case property. It is though true that the seal impression H used for sealing the case property has not been produced in the Court yet the specimen impression of such seal has been produced and proved. 19. In the absence of any mandatory provision in law/rules 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. 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. A Division Bench of this Court in Hira Giri @ Hardev Giri v. State of H.P. [2003 (2) Shim L.C. 350] held that production of the seals and its specimen impressions at the trial is not the requirement of law but only a circumstance to reinforce the prosecution evidence and in case there is other cogent and reliable evidence like contemporaneous records supported by confidence inspiring evidence of witnesses, such non-production will be rendered inconsequential. The ratio of the decision in Atnar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2002 (2) S.L.J. 1214] relied upon by the defence counsel that mentioning the FIR number in same ink and pen on various documents prepared by the Investigating Officer on spot before the registration of the FIR would cast suspicion on the prosecution case does not strengthen the defence of the accused persons in the circumstances of the case in hand. The decision of the said case turns upon its own facts. Similarly, the accused persons cannot derive any help or assistance from the decisions of learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Ashok v. State, Vol. 82 (1999) Delhi Law Times 382, Ramesh Parkash v. State, Vol. 82 (1999) Delhi Law Times 431, Mohd. Hashim v. State, 2000 CRI. L.J. 1510 (Delhi High Court) and Zofar v. State, 2000 CRI. LJ. 1589 (Delhi High Court). In those decisions, the seizure and sealing of the sample packets were found doubtful by the learned Judges on scrutiny of the prosecution evidence. 20. The abovesaid decisions of learned Single Judge of the High Courts turns on the facts and circumstances of the cases. 21. In Dud Nath v. The State of (Union Territory), Chandigarh, 1997 CRI. L.J. 2050, relied upon by learned counsel for the accused persons, learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt on the grounds that the prosecution could not establish the charge against the accused persons for illegal possession of contraband by leading cogent and convincing evidence and no further evidence was led to show that impression of seal was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 22. 22. In Kedarnath Mallik alias Kedar Mallik v. State, 2001 CRI. L.J. 1307, a learned Single Judge of Orissa High Court has held that the prosecution has not explained the discrepancy in quantity of sample sent for chemical analysis and received at Laboratory for chemical examination. 23. In Banwari Lal v. State of Rajasthan, Vol. 21999 CRI. L.J. 2331, learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench ) held that weight of contraband received at Forensic Science Lab was different than that mentioned in seizure memo and sample at FSL was not shown to be a sample of alleged seized contraband and therefore, the recovery of the contraband from the accused was found doubtful. The evidence coming on record in this case establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the seal packets containing the sample bearing seal impression H were not tampered from the time the same were preferred and sealed till they reached the Chemical Examiner. The increase in height of the sample article for use in the Laboratory cannot be held to be prejudicial to the accused persons in any manner as the samples were prepared and sealed by PW-16 at the spot in the presence of the witnesses and seal impression H was applied on them and as the Chemical Examiner has also found the seal intact and unbroken. In support of our view, reliance is placed on a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Pon Adithan v. Deputy Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Madras, (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1. The bearing of FIR number on various seizure memos has been properly expLalned by the Investigating Officer in his deposition that he collected the attested copy of the document from the office of Superintendent of Police and a copy of FIR from Police Station, Manali. The defence of the accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that the Charas was recovered from the top of the body of the bus and the recovery of the contraband was foisted upon them cannot be found plausible and acceptable. Both accused persons have not explained the recovery of the huge quantity of Charas from their vehicle. 24. The further contention of Mr. J.S. Bhasin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Dehal Singh that intimation regarding taking personal search Ext. PA, memo Ex.PC regarding recovery and taking into possession of Charas and intimation Ex. Both accused persons have not explained the recovery of the huge quantity of Charas from their vehicle. 24. The further contention of Mr. J.S. Bhasin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Dehal Singh that intimation regarding taking personal search Ext. PA, memo Ex.PC regarding recovery and taking into possession of Charas and intimation Ex. PE regarding reasons of arrest were not put to the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have caused prejudice to the accused, in our view does not merit acceptance. It is no doubt true that the said documents were not specifically mentioned in the question put to the accused but the substance of preparation of the documents and recovery of the Charas weighing 27 Kg. and 800 grams from their conscious possession have been clearly put to both the accused in their statements which they have denied to be incorrect. Vide question No. 32 both the accused were called upon to state if they had anything to say in order to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and the accused replied that they are innocent and the case is false, against them. Thus, all the material evidence about the seizure, and sealing of the sample packets, preparation of the recovery memo and grounds of arrest were put to the accused persons in their statements and they had the opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against them. It was not necessary to put them each and every piece of evidence brought on record to prove the circumstances. Thus, the accused have been properly examined and there is no question of any prejudice having been caused to them as was pointed by learned counsel. In view of the reliable, cogent and confidence inspiring evidence of the official witnesses and other corroborating evidence as already discussed, we find no material discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of the witnesses as contended by Mr. J.S. Bhasin, learned Counsel. No other point was urged before us. In view of the above discussion, the charge against the accused persons is fully proved and their conviction and sentence under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act as awarded by the learned trial Court does not call for interference by this Court. As a result, these appeals are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.