Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 289 (HP)

JAUNI RAM v. STATE OF H. P.

2004-10-21

DEEPAK GUPTA, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

body2004
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 28.2.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushehar in Criminal Case No. 2 of 2001 convicting the appellant, (hereinafter referred to as the accused) under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of rupees one lac. In default of payment of fine the accused has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the decision of the present appeal are that on 26.12.2000 at 6.10 a.m. PW-6 Kanshi Ram, ASI, Police Station, Ani accompanied by PW-1 Ram Lal, Constable, PW-2 Roshan Lal, Constable, Gulab Chand, Constable and Rattan Chand, Head Constable, was on routine patroling duty on Ani-Shamshar-Jalori State Highway in the vicinity of Ropdi Mod. At that time they noticed one person carrying a black bag slung on his shoulder. He was coming from Shamshar towards Ani. At the sight of the police he felt scared and immediately took a U turn and tried to escape. The police party thereupon over-powered the said person. On interrogation, the said person disclosed his name to b6 Jouni Ram, accused. He was carrying a bag, Ex. P-4, slung on his shoulder. The police party suspected him to be in possession of contraband. PW-6, in the presence of the policemen accompanying him, gave an option to the accused of being searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate or by the police party vide consent memo Ex. PW-l/A. The accused consented to be searched by the police party. Thereafter PW-6 had offered himself for search vide search memo Ex. PW-l/B. PW-6 was searched, but nothing incriminating was found. In the presence of the accused person and the policemen accompanying him, PW-6 searched the bag, Ex. P-4, and had recovered Charas Ex. P-3 in the shape of billets and tablets from the bag, Ex. P-4 being carried by the accused person. Charas was wrapped in polythene paper, Ex. P-5. Thereafter PW-6 had sent Constable Gulab Chand to get the weights and scale, who had returned at about 7.30 a.m. with the weights and scale. 2. P-4, and had recovered Charas Ex. P-3 in the shape of billets and tablets from the bag, Ex. P-4 being carried by the accused person. Charas was wrapped in polythene paper, Ex. P-5. Thereafter PW-6 had sent Constable Gulab Chand to get the weights and scale, who had returned at about 7.30 a.m. with the weights and scale. 2. The Charas recovered from the packet, Ex.P-4 was weighed and found to be 2600 gms. PW-6 had drawn two samples of 25 gms each from the Charas recovered from the accused person. The sample packets of Charas and rest of the Charas alongwith bag Ex.P-4, polythene paper, Ex. P-5 had been separately sealed in three packets with seal X and had been taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW-l/C. The accused was arrested for committing an offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and he was apprised of the ground of arrest vide Ex. PW-l/D. Thereafter PW-6 had prepared the report Ex. PW-2/A and sent the same to Police Station, Ani for registration of FIR. FIR Ex. PW-3/B was registered at 11.40 a.m. at Police Station, Ani, District Kullu on the basis of report Ex. PW-2/A. PW-6 had produced the sample packets of Charas and rest of the Charas in a sealed cover bearing seal X before PW-8, SI Tejinder Verma, SHO, Police Station, Ani, on 26.12.2000 in the evening. PW-8, SI Tejinder Singh, SHO, Police Station, Ani had re-sealed the sample packets of Charas and the remaining Charas in original packing with seal K. PW-6 had prepared special report, Ex. PW-l/F under Section 57 of the Act and sent the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ani. This report, Ex. PW-1 /F, was received by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 27.12.2000. One sample packet of Charas was got examined from the Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat, who vide report Ex. PX had found the sample analysed by him to be containing Charas. Thereafter a challan was put up in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur against the accused under Section 20 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur charged the accused for the following offence:— "That you on 26.12.2000 at about 6.10 a.m. in the area of Ropari More within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Ani had been found in exclusive and conscious possession of 2 Kgs. and 600 gms. The learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur charged the accused for the following offence:— "That you on 26.12.2000 at about 6.10 a.m. in the area of Ropari More within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Ani had been found in exclusive and conscious possession of 2 Kgs. and 600 gms. Charas and had thereby committed an offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that you be tried on the aforesaid charge by this Court. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and cLalmed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses. PW-1 Ram Lal, Constable stated that on 26.12.2000 he had accompanied PW-6, Kanshi Ram, ASI alongwith PW-2, Roshan Lal, LHC and Rattan Chand, Head Constable and Gulab Chand, Constable for patrol duty. When the police party was in the area of Ropari Mod, at about 1 KM from Ani, they noticed one person coming from Sharshar towards Ani. At the sight of the police, the said person felt scared and tried to escape. 3. The police overpowered the said person. The said person was carrying one black bag on his shoulder. On interrogation the said person had disclosed his name to be Jouni Ram. He was suspected to be in possession of contraband. Kanshi Ram, ASI in the presence of Head Constable and Constables accompanying him gave the accused person an option of being searched before a Magistrate or a gazetted officer or by the police party. According to this witness, the accused person had given his consent on Ex. PW-l/A to be searched by the police. Thereafter PW-6, ASI Kanshi Ram, got himself searched in the presence of witnesses, but nothing incriminating was found. Thereafter the black bag, Ex. P-4 being carried by the accused was checked. The bag was found to contain Charas, Ex. P-3 in the form of billets and tablets. Charas was wrapped in a polythene paper, Ex.P-5. After the Charas was recovered, PW-6 had deputed Gulab Singh to bring the weights and scale. Gulab Singh had brought the same and on weighment, Charas was found to be weighing 2 Kg. 600 gms. The police had drawn two samples of 25 gms. each from the Charas recovered from the accused person. After the Charas was recovered, PW-6 had deputed Gulab Singh to bring the weights and scale. Gulab Singh had brought the same and on weighment, Charas was found to be weighing 2 Kg. 600 gms. The police had drawn two samples of 25 gms. each from the Charas recovered from the accused person. In the presence of the accused and the police personnel, PW-6 had sealed the samples of Charas and the remaining Charas alongwith polythene paper Ex. P-5 and bag, Ex. P-4. Three packets of Charas were made and sealed with seal X and were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW-l/C Seal had been handed over to Constable Roshan Lal. The accused is said to have thumb marked the recovery memo. 4. Thereafter the accused person was arrested after being apprised of the grounds of arrest vide document Ex. PW-l/D. Personal search of the accused was conducted vide document Ex. PW-l/A. The witness stated that on 26.12.2000 PW-6 Kanshi Ram, ASI had handed over special report copy Ex. PW-l/F to him with direction to submit the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ani. This witness submitted the copy of special report before the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 27.12.2000 at 10.00 a.m. During the statement of PW-1, the learned Public Prosecutor had produced before the court two sealed packets, sealed with seal K which was intact. The outer cover of the first packet is Ex. P-2, sealed with seal K. Inside this packet there was another packet Ex. P-l which was sealed with seal X and it was also intact and contained the sample packet of Charas. The second packet sealed with seal K was marked as Ex. P-7. Inside this packet there was another packet Ex. P-6 which was sealed with seal X. Inside this packet Ex. P-6, there was the remaining Charas Ex. P-3, the bag Ex. P-4 from which Charas had been recovered from the accused and the polythene paper, Ex. P-5 in which Charas had been wrapped. In cross examination the witness stated that they had reached the area of Ropdi Mor at about 5.00 a.m. He further stated that the accused was noticed by the police party from a distance of 8 to 10 paces. He stated that it was not so dark that a man could not be seen at this distance. In cross examination the witness stated that they had reached the area of Ropdi Mor at about 5.00 a.m. He further stated that the accused was noticed by the police party from a distance of 8 to 10 paces. He stated that it was not so dark that a man could not be seen at this distance. He denied the suggestion that the police had received prior secret information regarding export of Charas. He stated that houses of Karam Chand, Ram Chand and Jiya Lal are at some distance from the site from where the accused had been apprehended. He denied the suggestion that there was habitation close to the site. 5. He denied the suggestion that the Highway was used by the traffic in the early hours of the morning and stated that traffic starts only after 7.30 a.m. He volunteered that there is a short-cut and the public generally uses the short-cut and do not go by the Highway. He has denied the suggestion that the police had intentionally not associated any non official witnesses. He also stated that Gulab Chand had fetched the weights from a shop at Ani and that Gulab Chand had returned with the weights at about 7.20 a.m. He denied the suggestion that accused person had been arrested by the police at bus stand, Ani and that accused had been taken to Police Station, Ani from bus stand, Ani. PW-2 Roshan Lal supported the version given by PW-1 and it is not necessary to repeat his entire statement. He also stated that he had signed the documents Exts. PW-l/B, 1/C, 1/D and 1/E. In cross examination he stated that police reached Ropdi Mod on 26.12.2000 at 6.10 a.m. However, he again stated that police had been camping in the area of Ropdi Mod since 5.00 a.m. He denied the suggestion that a person could not be seen from a distance of 8 to 10 paces at that time. He stated that the police was patrolling that area for checking smuggling of timber and other goods. He has denied the suggestion that there is a shop of Pratap Chand at a distance of 200 meters from Ropdi Mod or there is a house of Puran Chand at a distance of 300 meters. He stated that the police was patrolling that area for checking smuggling of timber and other goods. He has denied the suggestion that there is a shop of Pratap Chand at a distance of 200 meters from Ropdi Mod or there is a house of Puran Chand at a distance of 300 meters. In cross examination the witness stated that before searching the accused, PW-6 Kanshi Ram had offered himself for search and had actually been searched. The accused had been given an option of being searched either before a Magistrate or a gazetted officer or by the police party itself and the accused had given his consent to be searched by the police party. He denied the suggestion that nothing incriminating was found from the accused person. He stated that no non official witnesses were preaent or available when the police had apprehended the accused. He denied the suggestion that non official witnesses had not been associated since nothing was recovered from the accused. He stated that police had no prior information with regard to the export of Charas. PW-3 Kumbh Dass at the relevant time was working as MHC, Police Station, Ani. He produced the Malkhana register. He stated that on 26.12.2000 PW-8 SI Tejinder Verma, SHO, Police Station, Ani had deposited three sealed packets duly sealed with seal K with him and that he made entry in the relevant register. He further stated that on 27.12.2000 he had sent one sample of Charas sealed with seal K to Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat through PW-4, Constable Hira Singh vide RC No. 82/2000 (copy of which is Ex. PW-3/A) and that PW-4 had returned the RC to him after depositing the sample in the laboratory at Kandaghat. The witness had brought the original RC. He also registered the FIR Ex. PW-3/B on receipt of report Ex. PW-2/A. He states that none had tampered with the case property so long it remained in his custody. Only one question has been put to the witness in cross-examination in which he states that alongwith the sample packet, PW-8 Tejinder Verma had deposited the specimen impression of seal and relevant form with him. PW-4, Hira Singh at the relevant time was working as Constable in Police Station, Ani. Only one question has been put to the witness in cross-examination in which he states that alongwith the sample packet, PW-8 Tejinder Verma had deposited the specimen impression of seal and relevant form with him. PW-4, Hira Singh at the relevant time was working as Constable in Police Station, Ani. He stated that on 27.12.2000 PW-3, Kumbh Dass, MHC had handed over one sample packet and relevant form alongwith specimen impression of seal to him with direction to deposit the sample packet and relevant form and specimen impression of seal with Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat vide RC Ex. PW-3/A. He stated that he deposited such material with Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat and returned the RC to PW-3. He stated that none had tampered with the case property so long it remained in his custody. 6. This witness has not been subjected to cross examination, though opportunity was given. PW-5 H.C. Reader to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ani, had stated that on 27.12.2000 Ahmad Syed, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ani had handed over special report Ex. PW-l/F for record which had been initialled by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. This witness also produced the original special report. This witness has not been cross examined. PW-6, ASI Kanshi Ram, is the Investigating Officer. He has supported the prosecution version and, therefore, it is not necessary to repeat his statement in extenso. However, it would be pertinent to state that even as per this witness the accused was suddenly apprehended at about 6.10 a.m. near Ropadi Mod when he was carrying a black bag on his shoulder. He suspected the accused to be carrying Charas. On interrogation the accused disclosed his name and stated that he was in possession of small quantity of Charas for personal consumption. This witness states that he had sent for non official witnesses, but none was available in the vicinity at that time. He then states that he gave an option to the accused person of being searched by a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer or by the police party vide Ex. PW-l/A. Accused person had consented to be searched by the police party. PWs 1 and 2 had also signed consent memo. Thereafter he had offered himself for search, but nothing incriminating was recovered vide document Ex. PW-l/B. The bag of the accused Ex. P-4 was searched and Charas Ex.P-3 was recovered. PW-l/A. Accused person had consented to be searched by the police party. PWs 1 and 2 had also signed consent memo. Thereafter he had offered himself for search, but nothing incriminating was recovered vide document Ex. PW-l/B. The bag of the accused Ex. P-4 was searched and Charas Ex.P-3 was recovered. The Charas in the shape of billets and tablets was wrapped in a polythene paper, Ex. P-5. He had thereafter sent Gulab Chand, Constable to Ani to get the weights and scale. Gulab Chand had returned after about an hour. The Charas was weighed and found to be 2 Kg. 600 gms. 7. This witness thereafter drew two samples of 25 gms. each. The Charas, Ex.P-3, the bag, Ex.P-4, and the polythene paper, Ex.P-5, in which the Charas was wrapped, were taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW-l/C. Two sample packets of Charas and the remaining Charas alongwith bag Ex. P-4 and polythene paper, Ex. P-5 were sealed in three separate sealed packets bearing seal X. Thereafter he had apprised the accused of the grounds of arrest vide memo Ex. PW-l/D and the accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW-1/ D and the accused was arrested on the spot. PW-6 further stated that he had prepared the report, Ex. PW-2/A and sent the same to Police Station through Constable, Gian Chand, PW-3, Kumbh Dass had registered FIR Ex.PW-3/B. This witness prepared rough sketch map of the site, Ex.PW-6/B. The witness stated that on 26.12.2000 in the evening he had prepared special report Ex. PW-l/F and sent the same to the SDPO, Ani. He further stated that he deposited three sealed packets duly sealed with seal X with PW-8, SI Tejinder Verma, SHO, Police Station, Ani in the evening of 26.12.2000 who had re-sealed the three packets in original packing with seal K. He stated that seal X had been handed over to him by Roshan Lal for safe custody. He stated that he had prepared the documents Ex. PW-l/B, PW-l/C, PW-l/D and Ex. PW-l/E. PW-6 has been cross examined with regard to the time they had reached Ropadi Mod and states that they reached there at about 6.00 a.m. The suggestion that police had received prior secret information about export of Charas has been denied by him. He stated that he had prepared the documents Ex. PW-l/B, PW-l/C, PW-l/D and Ex. PW-l/E. PW-6 has been cross examined with regard to the time they had reached Ropadi Mod and states that they reached there at about 6.00 a.m. The suggestion that police had received prior secret information about export of Charas has been denied by him. He stated that since there were no houses near the site of recovery, independent non official witnesses could not be associated with the recovery. He denied the suggestion that the accused person had declined the option to be searched by the police party and that the accused wanted to be searched before the Magistrate. 8. He stated that no person had crossed the Highway till he sent the report Ex. PW-1/A to the police since the commuters use the short-cut and do not take the longer road i.e. via the Highway. He denied the suggestion that no Charas was recovered from the accused. PW-7 is SHO, Police Station, Ani who states that after completion of the investigation of case FIR No. 77 of 2000 and on receipt of Chemical Examiner, Ex. PX, he had prepared the final report under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, against the accused and filed challan in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur on 20.3.2001. The only cross examination to this witness is that he has wrongly recorded in the final report that PW-6 had not offered himself for search by the accused person. PW-8, SI Tejinder Verma, who was SHO, Police Station, Ani at the relevant time stated that on 26.12.2000, PW-6 Kanshi Ram had brought three sealed packets duly marked with seal X alleged to contain Charas and sample of Charas before him. Seal X was intact. He stated that he had re-sealed all the three packets with seal X in original packing with his seal K. He stated that he deposited all the three packets duly sealed with seal K with PW-3, Kumbh Dass. He has proved the specimen impression of seal K. He stated that he had filled in the requisite form and deposited the same with MHC. This witness has also not been subjected to any cross examination, though opportunity has been given. After recording the statement of prosecution witnesses, statement of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. 9. The version of the accused is of denial. This witness has also not been subjected to any cross examination, though opportunity has been given. After recording the statement of prosecution witnesses, statement of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. 9. The version of the accused is of denial. He has denied the entire incident and states that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not produced any defence evidence. We have heard Mr. B.S. Chauhan, atnicus curiae for the accused and Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. Mr. B.S. Chauhan has challenged the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act on the following four grounds:— (1) No link evidence to connect the case property with the sample got analysed from the Chemical Examiner; (2) That in the documents Ex. PW-l/C, Ex. PW-l/D, Ex. PW-l/E and Ex. PX, the FIR number is mentioned which shows that the documents were not prepared at the spot and have been prepared later on; (3) That independent non official witnesses have not been associated and no efforts have been made to associate non official witnesses in the recovery; and (4) That the specimen impression of seal X has not been produced or proved before the learned trial Court. Mr. Chauhan contends that if his contentions are considered and accepted, only one conclusion can be reached, that the investigation has been unfair and if it is found to be unfair the accused is bound to be acquitted. We shall deal with all these contentions one by one. Contention No. 1. In support of his first contention that there is no evidence to connect the case property with the sample which was got analysed, Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the accused, has specifically drawn our attention to the fact that the two packets which were opened in the court had two separate covers, the outer cover was sealed with seal K and the inner cover was sealed with seal X. According to him, this is not possible since PW-8 and PW-6 state that PW-8 had re-sealed all the three packets, sealed with seal X in original packing with seal K. The argument of Mr. Chauhan is that since the original packing itself was re-sealed with seal K, there should have been one packet only bearing both, seal X and seal K. At first blush this argument sounds attractive. However, in case the statements of the witnesses are examined in detail, it is clear that this contention is devoid of any merit. PW-8 does state that he re-sealed the three packets sealed with X in original packing with his seal K’ This statement can also mean that the original packing was sealed with seal X and was re-sealed in another packing sealed with seal K. This is supported by his further statement that he had deposited three packets duly sealed with seal K with PW-3, Kumbh Dass. PW-3 Kumbh Dass also states that PW-8 had deposited three packets duly sealed with seal K with him on 26.12.2000. There is no mention of seal X in the statement of this witness. He also stated that he had sent one sample packet of Charas sealed with seal K to Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat through PW-4. Again, there is no mention of seal X. PWs 3, 4, 6 and 8 have also not been cross examined with regard to this aspect of the matter. In fact, there is no cross-examination of PWs 4 and 8. Mr. Chauhan also urged that in Ex. PX, description of the seals has been given as seal X and seal IC and how could both the seals above mentioned when the outer packet was sealed only with seal K. A perusal of Ex. PX shows that the same has been sent by PW-6, ASI Kanshi Ram. He was the person who had put seal X on the original packing and in his presence, PW-8 Tejinder Verma had put seal K on the outer packing. Since this witness has filled in the form, therefore, it can reasonably be believed that he had mentioned both the seals since he was aware that inner packet was sealed with seal X and outer packet with seal K. Mr. Chauhan, in support of his contention, has relied upon Bahadur Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another [2002 Cr.L.J. 579]. Chauhan, in support of his contention, has relied upon Bahadur Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another [2002 Cr.L.J. 579]. We find that the facts of this case are totally different inasmuch as in the said case, the prosecution has failed to prove as to who had made the entries in the arrest memo of the accused regarding the amount of contraband seized and as to when the same was made. In the present case all the relevant witnesses have been examined and the witnesses have not been subjected to any cross examination on the point whether the Charas which had been recovered was sealed in one or two packets. In fact, no suggestion was put to the witnesses that the samples had been tampered with. 10. In the absence of such cross examination the accused cannot now contend that the packets have been tampered with. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the accused. Contention No. 2. The second argument of Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the accused, is that Ex. PW-l/C, the recovery memo, Ex. PW-l/D, grounds of arrest and Ex. PW-l/E, personal search memo, show that the FIR number has been mentioned on the top of the documents. According to his version, entry with regard to FIR number is in the same pen, same ink as in the rest of the documents. In support of this contention he has also stated that as per the prosecution witnesses, the report was sent to the Police Station after filling in the NCB Form and, therefore, how could there be a mention of seal K in the NCB Form. In support of his contention he has cited Nathiya and another v. State of Rajasthan, [1992 Cr. LJ 2342]. He referred to para 12 of this judgment, which reads as under:— "12. In the present case, the FIR Ex. P-16 was admittedly recorded at 1 p.m. on 28.2.87 i.e. after the police party had reached the police station after making the recoveries. But, the recovery memo Ex. P-l bears the number of the FIR. The same is true of Ex. P-2, Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4. If the FIR was registered after the alleged recoveries had taken place and after the accused-appellants had been apprehended, then these documents could not have recited the number of the FIR at all. But, the recovery memo Ex. P-l bears the number of the FIR. The same is true of Ex. P-2, Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4. If the FIR was registered after the alleged recoveries had taken place and after the accused-appellants had been apprehended, then these documents could not have recited the number of the FIR at all. The prosecution has not explained this grave and serious discrepancy. The possibilities are that either FIR had been recorded prior to the alleged recoveries and arrest or that the FIR number was inserted in these documents after the FIR had been registered. Both ways, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution story and creates a good deal of doubt if recoveries had been made in the manner alleged by the prosecution. PW-5 Hamir Singh was under a duty to explain this discrepancy but he has not cared to do so. PW-1 Bijraj Singh, who is said to have accompanied Hamir Singh during the seizure proceedings has categorically admitted that the police party had gone back to police station after recovery memos, site plan, Fard Halat Moka had been prepared. If it is so, the number of FIR recited in these documents was definitely a later interpolation which discredits the prosecution case." Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the accused in support of his contention also cited at the Bar Mohd. Hashim v. State [2000 Cr. L.J. 1510], Zafar v. State [2000 Cr.L.J. 1589] and Ram Kishan v. State of Himachal Pradesh [1992 Drugs Cases 224]. In our opinion these authorities are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In those cases the facts were different and the said cases have been decided on facts peculiar to each one of them. On the other hand, Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, learned Additional Advocate General, has contended that a huge amount of quantity of 2 Kg. 600 gms. of Charas has been recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused and in terms of Sections 35 and 54 of the N.D.P.S. Act the Court shall presume the existence of the mental state of mens rea once the recovery is proved. 11. He argued that there is no cross examination of the witnesses with regard to the time when the FIR number was entered in these documents. 11. He argued that there is no cross examination of the witnesses with regard to the time when the FIR number was entered in these documents. He argued that a reasonable explanation could be that the top portions of the papers have been left blank and entered after the FIR had been recorded. He further contended that in view of the fact that there is no cross examination to the witnesses on this aspect, the defence cannot be now permitted to raise the plea that the documents were ante timed and were prepared at a later date since no suggestion was put to the witnesses. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this court in Fredrick George v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2002 Cr.L.J. 4600] and Duni Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2001 (2) SLC 206]. He has also cited the judgments of Honble Supreme Court reported in Megh Singh v. State of Punjab [(2003) 8 SCC 666] and Madan Lal and another v. State of H.P. [(2003) 7 SCC 465]. In view of the law cited above, we are unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the accused, since the defence put no questions to any of the concerned prosecution witnesses as to how and when FIR number was entered on the documents, Ex. PW-1/C, Ex. PW-l/D and Ex. PW-l/E. There is not even a suggestion put to prosecution witnesses that the documents were not prepared at the spot. After considering the relevant contentions and evidence, we are of the considered view that in this case the mere mentioning of the FIR number in the documents ipso facto cannot lead to the conclusion that the documents have been prepared at a later stage. No questions were put to the investigating officer or other police officials that the documents had not been prepared by them at the spot. We may have to be more cautious in appreciating the evidence. However, the mere mentioning of FIR number in the documents cannot be held to be fatal to the prosecution. Contention No. 3. The third point urged by Mr. Chauhan is that independent non official witnesses were not associated and neither any effort was made to associate such non official witnesses. It is an admitted fact that non official witnesses have not been associated. Contention No. 3. The third point urged by Mr. Chauhan is that independent non official witnesses were not associated and neither any effort was made to associate such non official witnesses. It is an admitted fact that non official witnesses have not been associated. PW-6, Kanshi Ram, ASI, investigating officer does state that he had made an effort to procure the presence of non official witnesses. 12. However, this does not appear to be correct in view of the statement of PW-1, Ram Lal and PW-2, Roshan Lal that no effort was made to associate independent witnesses. The fact, however, remains that in the midst of winter on 26th December, 2000 when the days are short, it cannot be expected that there would be any general public on the road at 6.10 a.m. in the morning. It has come on record that there is no habitation in the vicinity and at that time there is no traffic on the Highway. Therefore, the non association or non joining of the independent witnesses in search and seizure operation will not ipso facto be fatal to the prosecution case. This court in Rajesh Basniyat v. State of H.P. [Latest HLJ 2004 (HP) 875] has held as follows:— "The failure to join independent witness can be attributable to various reasons like reluctance of the people to be witnesses in the cases, non-availability of witnesses in case of a chance recovery. Therefore, effect of the non-joining the independent witnesses has to be examined in view of the circumstances of each and every case. In case the omission to join independent witnesses is not deliberate and mala fide but because of circumstances beyond control the lapse will have least effect on the prosecution case. In any case, the court will have to be more careful and cautious in appreciating the evidence. The omission to join independent witnesses ipso facto will not be fatal to the case of prosecution’ There is no rule of law to support the contention that testimony of police officials associated in the investigation or investigated the case should not be acted upon or believed. The police officials are as competent witnesses as any other witnesses. It is a rule of caution that while appreciating their evidence the court has to be more cautious and careful and will look into other corroboratory circumstances if any to assess their evidence. The police officials are as competent witnesses as any other witnesses. It is a rule of caution that while appreciating their evidence the court has to be more cautious and careful and will look into other corroboratory circumstances if any to assess their evidence. In case such evidence is corroborated by other corroborative evidence and inspires confidence, there is no reason to discredit an official witness simply because he is official witness’ In State of Punjab v. Makhan Chand, [2004 (2) S.L.J. 980], the apex Court held that when the police party on patrol duty suddenly apprehends the accused, there is no need for compliance with Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the mere fact that no independent witness was joined is not fatal to the prosecution. In our view mere non association of independent witnesses cannot lead to the conclusion that the prosecution case is false, especially when the quantity of Charas recovered is to the extent of 2 Kg. 600 gms. It cannot be said that such a huge amount of Charas was planted upon the accused to falsely implicate him in the case. Contention No. 4 The last submission of Mr. Chauhan is that seal specimens of seal X are not on the file. This is an undisputed fact. However, while deciding the other contentions above, we have held that there is no cross examination of the witnesses with regard to the seals. All the witnesses in whose custody the packets remained have stated that there was no tampering of the packets while they remained in their possession. 13. There is no cross examination on this point. A Division Bench of this Court in Hira Giri @ Hardev Giri v. State of H.P. [2003 (2) Shim. LC 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. Therefore, mere non production of the specimen seal during the course of trial cannot lead to the inference that the entire seizure and recovery is wrong and illegal. No other point was urged before us. Therefore, mere non production of the specimen seal during the course of trial cannot lead to the inference that the entire seizure and recovery is wrong and illegal. No other point was urged before us. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any good reason to upset the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur, Sessions Division at Rampur Bushehar under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. In the result, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. The case property be dealt with as per directions of the trial court. We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. B.S. Chauhan, amicus curiae. Appeal dismissed.