Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 152 (HP)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. IVOR FLEITCHER

2005-05-23

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, SURJIT SINGH

body2005
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J.—The present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, assailing the judgment dated 28.6.2003 of learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, whereby the respondents Ivor Fleitcher and Robert Williams, British Nationals, from whom 20 Kgs. Charas had allegedly been recovered on 12.4.2002, have been acquitted. 2. Facts that need to be noticed for the disposal of the appeal may be summed up thus. On 12.4.2002, HC Lai Singh of Police Post Patli Kuhal accompanied by two other Head Constables, namely HC Prakash Chand and HC Sarwan Kumar, three constables namely, C. Om Parkash, C. Sunder Singh and C. Ishwar Das and Home Guard Volunteer Gian Chand went towards Dollu-nallah, in connection with routine patrolling. Around 8 or 8.30 a.m., when the party reached near Camping site of tourism department, which is closed to Dollu-nallah, the two respondents were spotted standing near the boundary wall of tourism hotel/camping site. On seeing the police, they tried to hide behind the boundary wall of the said hotel/camping site. This aroused the suspicion of the police party. They went to the respondents and enquired about their names and particulars. HC Lai Singh told that he suspected that they (the respondents) were carrying some contraband and so it was intended the search their persons and if they so desired, search of their persons could be arranged in the presence of a Magistrate or some Gazetted Officer. The respondents opted to be searched, on the spot, by the members of the aforesaid police party. The respondents were carrying two attache- cases and two bags. From the search of the two attache-cases, Charas in the shape of biscuits/chapaties and sticks was recovered. On weighment, the stuff recovered from each of the two attache cases was found to be 10 Kgs. The recovered Charas was seized. Two separate search and seizure memos were prepared. Two samples from the stuff recovered from each of the two attache cases were separated. The samples so separated were sealed with a seal which produced the impression of letter H of English alphabet. The bulk stuff was placed back into the two attache cases. The attache cases were made up in to parcels, with cloth covering and those parcels were also sealed with the same seal as the samples of the recovered stuff. The samples so separated were sealed with a seal which produced the impression of letter H of English alphabet. The bulk stuff was placed back into the two attache cases. The attache cases were made up in to parcels, with cloth covering and those parcels were also sealed with the same seal as the samples of the recovered stuff. The seal, after use, was given to a member of the police party, namely HC Prakash Chand. NCB forms were also filled in on the spot. A written report of the search and seizure and the circumstances, which led to the making of the search, was prepared and sent to the Police Station, Manali for the formal registration of the case. The case property was produced before the Station House Officer, Police Station, Manali, who put his own seal on the samples parcels and also on the parcels of attache cases with bulk stuff therein. The seal used by the Station House Officer produced the impression of letter A of English alphabet. One sample each from two sets of the samples, taken from each of the two attache cases, was sent to the Chemical Examiner. The Chemical Examiner reported that the contents of samples were of Charas. The Judicial Magistrate, Manali, was approached under Section 52(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, for certifying the inventory of the recovered stuff, the weight of the recovered stuff and also for taking the photographs of the stuff. The Judicial Magistrate visited the Police Station and issued necessary certificate. 3. On completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, who after complying with the requirement of the Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure charge sheeted the respondents and on their pleading not guilty put them on trial and finally acquitted them. 4. On completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, who after complying with the requirement of the Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure charge sheeted the respondents and on their pleading not guilty put them on trial and finally acquitted them. 4. The reasoning given by the learned trial Court for recording the acquittal of the two respondents is : (a) the Investigating Officer made no effort to join independent witnesses, though many such witnesses were supposed to be available; (b) there is non-compliance of Section 52(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act; (c) NCB forms, allegedly filled in on the spot by the Investigating Officer, have been tampered with; (d) NCB forms and the specimen seal impressions had not been sent to the CTL, Kandaghat; and (e) the evidence of the witnesses regarding search and seizure is contradictory. 5. In the grounds of appeal, it is alleged that non-association of the independent witnesses at the time of search and seizure is not such a serious matter, as to totally disbelieve the prosecution version. It is alleged that the non-association of the independent witnesses does not vitiate the recovery and that the evidence of official/police witnesses with respect to search and seizure can become the basis for conviction for possession of contraband of stuff, if the same is convincing and inspires confidence. It is alleged that Section 52(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act does not pertain to search and seizure and its non-compliance makes no difference. At the same time, it is alleged that the provision had been complied with. It has been denied that NCB forms had been tampered with. The alleged contradictions in the testimony of police officials are stated to be immaterial, inasmuch as they pertain to irrelevant and immaterial aspects of the case. Findings of the learned trial Court that NCB forms and the specimen impressions of the seal were not sent o the CTL , Kandaghat, is alleged to be contrary to the evidence on record. 6. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General (Shri Som Dutt Vasudeva) and learned Counsel for the respondents (S/Shri Sandeep Kauhsik and Ajay Mohan Goel). 7. 6. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General (Shri Som Dutt Vasudeva) and learned Counsel for the respondents (S/Shri Sandeep Kauhsik and Ajay Mohan Goel). 7. Admittedly the evidence on record shows that no effort was made by the Investigating Officer, namely HC Lal Singh (PW-10) to associate independent witnesses. The respondents were allegedly spotted near the camping site of the tourism department at 8 or 8.30 a.m. The said site is situated by the side of the National Highway-21, per site plan Ext. PW 10/ B. It has come in the evidence that at a distance of about 100 Meters from the site, where two respondents were intercepted, there are 5-6 houses. Otherwise also, National Highway is supposed to be a busy road and several vehicles and other persons can legitimately be presumed to have driven/ walked along that highway when the accused were searched. PW-8 Sunder Singh constable, one of the members of the party that conducted the search and made the seizure, has stated that none from amongst the members of the party went to call any witness from the nearby 5- i 6 houses or the tourism hotel which comprises of 9-10 huts. No doubt PW-9 HC Parkash Chand, another witness of search and seizure says that HC Lal Singh had personally gone to arrange some independent witnesses to witness the search of the luggage of two respondents and PW-10 Lal Singh has also stated that he went to the huts of tourism department to look for some persons for being associated as independent witnesses and found the said huts locked, but their testimony cannot be believed being totally contradictory to the deposition of PW-8 C. Sunder Singh. Also, PW-10 Lal Singh is contradicted, as regards this aspect of the matter by the report Ext.PW4/A, which is sent to the Police Station, for the formal registration of the case, because in the said report he has stated that the place being isolated, no independent witness was available. There is no mention in this report that its author PW-10 HC Lal Singh went to nearby huts looking for some independent persons for being associated as witness of search. 8. From the above stated position, it is clear that no effort was made by the police people, constituting the party, to associate any independent witness, though witnesses were supposedly available. 8. From the above stated position, it is clear that no effort was made by the police people, constituting the party, to associate any independent witness, though witnesses were supposedly available. However, this failure on their part by itself cannot be a ground for disbelieving their testimony with respect to the recovery of Charas from the accused, particularly when the quantity of the Charas is so huge that it could not have been planted by the members of the party and also when the respondents are British Nationals, who are generally well aware and conscious of their rights especially the right to liberty and hence it is quite difficult to falsely implicate them. It is in this background that the evidence of the police witnesses, as regards the recovery of Charas needs to be appreciated. 9. The case of the prosecution, per testimony of PW-8, Sunder Singh Constable, PW-9 Parkash Chand Head Constable arid PW-10 Lai Singh Head Constable (Investigating Officer) is that on the fateful day, i.e. on 12.4.2002, a police party headed by PW-10 HC Lai Singh was going towards Dollu-nallah, in connection with routine patrolling and when they reached near camping site which belongs to the tourism department, they spotted the two respondents near the boundary wall of the said site and on seeing the police party they tried to hide themselves behind the wall along with luggage, comprising of two attache cases and two bags and that aroused the suspicion of the police people. Further testimony of these three witnesses is that they overpowered the two respondents and asked their names and particulars and also required them to produce their passports. It is also testified by them that they suspected that the respondents were carrying some Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance and so the respondents were informed by PW 10 HC Lai Singh that it was intended to search their persons and in case they so desired search could be arranged in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. They have stated that the respondents opted for being searched by the policemen present on the spot. Also they have stated that two separate memos, with respect to these options having been given to the respondents, were prepared, which are Exts. They have stated that the respondents opted for being searched by the policemen present on the spot. Also they have stated that two separate memos, with respect to these options having been given to the respondents, were prepared, which are Exts. PW9/A and PW9/B. They have stated that thereafter luggage of the two respondents was searched and from the two attache cases, which the accused were carrying Charas was recovered, which on being weighed was found to be twenty kilograms (10 Kgs. from each attache case). Also they have stated that two samples from the stuff recovered from each of the two attache cases were separated and the samples were made up into four separate parcels and were sealed with a seal that produced the impression of English letter H and the bulk stuff was put back into the attache cases and those attache cases were made up into, parcels by being wrapped and stitched in cloth, and those parcels were also sealed with the same seal as sample parcels. 10. There is absolutely no contradiction with respect to these facts in the testimonies of these witnesses. Accused have taken the plea of denial simplicitor. The police people did not have any enmity with the two respondents, nor did they have any other motive to falsely implicate them. The respondents also do not say that there was any motive on the part of the police people to falsely implicate them, though they do say that they have been falsely implicated. As already noticed, the respondents are British Nationals and therefore, supposed to be highly zealous on their rights, particularly the right to liberty. They could not have allowed themselves to be arrested by petty Head Constables so easily had they been innocent nor could they have remained silent when kept in detention for a period of more than one year during the trial of the case, if nothing were recovered from them. Furthermore, the quantity of the Charas involved in the case is so large and its value so huge that it runs into lacs; of rupees and therefore it is unbelievable that police officials of the ranks of the Head Constables and Constables could have been in a position to procure the same for being planted upon the respondents. 11. Furthermore, the quantity of the Charas involved in the case is so large and its value so huge that it runs into lacs; of rupees and therefore it is unbelievable that police officials of the ranks of the Head Constables and Constables could have been in a position to procure the same for being planted upon the respondents. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondents relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of State of H.P. v. Hanacho alias Stewart [Latest HLJ 2004 (HP) (DB) 642] argued that the association of independent witnesses at the time of search is not a mere formality and that Investigating Officer has to explain the failure to associate independent witnesses, particularly, when such witnesses were easily available. It is true that law has cast a duty on the Police Officer to associate independent witnesses of the locality before conducting the search of the person or premises or the belonging of any person, but at the same time it is by now well settled that where such witnesses are not associated, the search itself may be illegal but not the recovery. In the present case, the two respondents on seeing the police, tried to hide behind the boundary wall of the camping side. The fact is proved by the testimony of PW 10 Lai Singh, Investigating Officer, PW 9 Parkash Chand and PW 8 Sunder Singh and there is no contradiction in the testimony of these witnesses as regards this aspect of the matter. Now when the two respondents, who are British Nationals, conducted in a suspicious manner on seeing the police, that was bound to arouse the curiosity of the police officials and in that curiosity they happened to search their baggage, little realizing that they were going to hit upon huge quantity of Charas. It appears that after the search was conducted and recovery effected, the police officials, who are of low ranks and not supposed to be well versed and trained in the matter of investigation of serious crimes like the one which is the subject matter of this case, in their wisdom, thought it proper to give the search and the recovery the colour of a search and seizure as per requirement of Section 100(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code thinking that unless they did so, the case would fail. Therefore, for the inapt handling of the matter by not so well trained police officials, the accused cannot be allowed to go scot-free. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this is a case of chance recovery, and, therefore, the non- association of independent witnesses, at the time of the search of the baggage of the respondents, cannot be taken to be a deliberate act on the part of Investigating Officer and other police officials accompanying him. As already noted, the Investigating Officer and other police officials accompanying him were not in a position to procure such a huge quantity of Charas for being planted upon the respondents, who are British Nationals, and, as such, supposedly well and enlightened about their rights, especially the right to liberty. 12. The above stated position apart, as a matter of fact in the present case it was not the requirement of any statutory law to associate independent witnesses, in the course of the search of the baggage of the accused persons. The police officials did not have any prior information. Also they did not search the persons of the respondents. Therefore, Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was not applicable. Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the verbatim reproduction of Sections 102 and Section 103 of the old Criminal Procedure Code, i.e. the Code of 1898. From a bare reading of sub-section (4) of Section 100 of the Code of criminal Procedure, it is clear that the provision is applicable where any place liable to search or inspection (under sub-section (1)) or any person in or about such place who is reasonably suspected of concealing about his person any article for which search should be made, (under Section (3)) is to be searched. In the present case, the police did not intend to search any place nor were the respondents present in or about any place intended to be searched and, therefore, the police officials were not supposed to have associated any independent and respectable persons of the area in the course of the search, as per requirement of sub-section (4) of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this view of the matter, we find support from a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Singh v. State of U.R [AIR 1956 SC 411], wherein it has, been held that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (corresponding to sub-sections (4) to (8) of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) is not attracted where no place or a person in or about such place is intended to be searched. The facts of the case were that in a murder case the accused was noticed wearing a blood stained shoe by the Investigating Officer, while conducting the investigation of that case on the spot. Though he associated two witnesses but they were not respectable inhabitants of the locality. A contention was raised that on account of non-association of the respectable persons of the locality, provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been given a go by. The contention was repelled with the observations that Section 103 applies when a search is to be made of a place. It was also held that the provision does not apply to the search of a person. 13. As a consequence of the above discussion, we hold that the non-association of the independent witnesses, at the time of the search of the baggage of the accused does not affect the recovery of the contraband. We find the evidence of the police officials, quite convincing and confidence inspiring, as regards the recovery of the contraband stuff. 14. Another ground which has been given too much weightage by the learned trial Court for acquitting the respondents is non-compliance of Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 15. The Section is reproduced below for ready reference:— 52-A. Disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.—(1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature of any Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances, their vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space or any other relevant considerations, by notification published In the Official Gazette, specify such Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances or class of narcotic drugs or class of Psychotropic Substances which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified. (2) Where any Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substances has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare an inventory of such Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances or the packing in which they are packed, country of or gin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of— (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b) taking, in the presence of such Magistrate, photographs of such drugs or substances and certifying such photographs as true; or (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. (3) Where an application is made under sub-section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every Court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of Narcotic Drugs or Osychotropic Substances and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence." 16. The learned trial Court has held, vide para-28 of its judgment, that no photographs have been proved on the record and the weight as mentioned in the application submitted to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali, for the purpose of certification of inventory etc. under Section 52-A, differed with the weight mentioned in the inventory and thus there was infringement of Section 52-A which vitiated the trial. We are constrained to observe that the view taken by the learned trial Court is perverse. In the application Ex. PW 3/F, which was submitted to the Judicial Magistrate, under Section 52 A(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, it is submitted that the weight of the Charas that had been recovered was 20 Kg. We are constrained to observe that the view taken by the learned trial Court is perverse. In the application Ex. PW 3/F, which was submitted to the Judicial Magistrate, under Section 52 A(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, it is submitted that the weight of the Charas that had been recovered was 20 Kg. and not that the Charas which was being produced in the Court in a sealed parcel weighed 20 Kg. Therefore, the observation of the learned trial Court that the weight mentioned in the application differs with the weight mentioned in the inventory Ex. PW 3/E cannot be accepted. 17. From a bare reading of sub-section (2) of Section 52-A as reproduced hereinabove, it is clear that taking of the photographs of the recovered substance and certification of such photographs as true is not a must. There are three options for certification; (i) the Magistrate may be asked to certify the correctness of the inventory; or (ii) he may be asked to get the substance photographed in his presence and to certify the photographs as true or (iii) he may be asked to permit the taking of representative sample of the substance in his presence and to certify the correctness of the list of sample so drawn. If one of the three types of certificates is issued by the Magistrate, that fulfills the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 52-A. In this case, the Magistrate certified the inventory to be correct, vide his certificate Ex. PW 3/G recorded on the reverse of the inventory Ex. PW 3/E. 18. In view of the above discussion, we find ourselves unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned trial Court that the trial is vitiated on account of so called infringement of Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 19. This apart, the provision of Section 52-A is not mandatory nor even directory. It is optional for the investigating agency to apply for certification of correctness of inventory, photographs or representative sample, if the property cannot be retained till the trial begins for any of the reasons mentioned therein. And when this provision is taken resort to, the certificate issued by the Magistrate becomes the primary evidence in place of the case property, i.e. the bulk recovered Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance. 20. And when this provision is taken resort to, the certificate issued by the Magistrate becomes the primary evidence in place of the case property, i.e. the bulk recovered Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance. 20. The N.C.B. forms which according to the learned trial Court have been tampered with are Ex. PW 3/A and Ex. PW 3/B. It is true that in the two forms, additions have been made against column No. 4 by writing "No. I" (in form Ex. PW 3/A) and "No. II" (in form Ex. PW 3/B) but these additions cannot be termed as tampering with the forms. Two samples were taken from the stuff recovered from each of the two suite cases which the respondents were having with them. One suite case was held by one respondent and the other by the other respondent. It appears that with a view to putting distinguishing marks on the two sets of the sample, the aforesaid addition was made in the two forms. In any case, this addition is of little consequence as would be seen from the discussion in the later part of this judgment. Both the respondents can legitimately be presumed to be in joint possession of both the suite cases from which the Charas was recovered, and, therefore, even if both the forms be assumed, for argument sake, to pertain to the stuff recovered from one of the two suite cases, that is not going to affect the prosecution case. 21. The observations of the learned trial Court that N.C.B. forms or specimen impression of the seal were not sent to Chemical Examiner, CTL, Kandaghat is contrary to the evidence on record. The reports of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PW 3/J and PW 3/K are in the form of continuation sheets (page-2) of the N.C.B. forms and this fact itself is enough to hold that the N.C.B. forms had been sent to the Chemical Examiner. As regards the specimen impressions, the Chemical Examiner, whose reports are per se admissible, has certified that the seal impressions on the sample parcels tallied with the specimen impressions of the seal which were sent to him separately. We see no reason to disbelieve the contents of these certificates appended below the report by the Chemical Examiner. 22. As regards the specimen impressions, the Chemical Examiner, whose reports are per se admissible, has certified that the seal impressions on the sample parcels tallied with the specimen impressions of the seal which were sent to him separately. We see no reason to disbelieve the contents of these certificates appended below the report by the Chemical Examiner. 22. Some contradictions in the testimony of PW 8 Sunder Singh, PW 9 H.C. Parkash Chand and PW 10 H.C. Lai Singh have also been noticed by the learned trial Court in its judgment and it has been observed that the contradictions make the evidence doubtful. The contradictions pertain to the points whether any efforts were made to associate independent local witnesses and whether provision of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act had been complied with or not. Both the points are immaterial. As already noticed, association of independent witnesses was not statutorily required. The provision of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was not applicable because this was not the case of search of the person of the accused but the search of their baggage and also because this was a case of chance recovery. A three Judges Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar [JT 2005 (4) SC 373] has held that word "person" cannot be given an extended meaning so as to include bag, briefcase or any other similar article, and, therefore, "search of a person" within the meaning of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act does not include the search of bag, briefcase etc. and hence in the case of search of such an article, Section 50 of the said Act is not applicable. 23. Learned defence Counsel argued with a great deal of vehemence, that from the reports of the Chemical Examiner, CTL, Kandaghat Ext. PW 3/J and Ext. PW 3/K or the N.C.B. forms to which these reports are annexed as continuation sheets, it cannot be made out if the samples referred to therein were the representative samples of the stuff recovered from each of the two suite cases or of the stuff recovered from only one suite case. PW 3/J and Ext. PW 3/K or the N.C.B. forms to which these reports are annexed as continuation sheets, it cannot be made out if the samples referred to therein were the representative samples of the stuff recovered from each of the two suite cases or of the stuff recovered from only one suite case. He urged that two representative samples were drawn from the stuff recovered from each of the two suite cases, but no mark of distinction indicating which two samples pertained to the stuff of which suite case were put on the samples or noted in the NCB forms. In our considered view, the contention, even if it be assumed to be true for argument sake, cannot be of any help to the respondents. The evidence of PW 8 Sunder Singh, PW 9 H.C. Parkash Chand and PW 10 H.C. Lal Singh unflinchingly proves that the two respondents were standing together with similar baggage when on seeing the police they tried to hide behind boundary wall. Both the respondents are from the same country, i.e. United Kingdom. There was equal quantity of Charas in the two suite cases which they were carrying, i.e. 10 Kg. in each suite case. From the facts that they both are the citizen of the same country, that they were together in a remote area of this country, that they both conducted in a suspicious manner on seeing the police and that both of them were having equal quantity of Charas in the suite cases held by them it can legitimately be presumed that they were in joint possession of the entire quantity of Charas, weighing 20 Kg. recovered from two suite cases. The reports of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PW 3/J and Ex. PW 3/K are in respect of two samples taken from the two suite cases held by the respondents. Therefore, even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that both the reports pertain to two samples taken from one of the suite cases (because from the stuff recovered from each of the two suite cases two samples were drawn), that would not be a legitimate ground for holding that the link evidence is missing. 24. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the acquittal of the respondents, as recorded by the learned trial Court, is not justified and is contrary to the evidence on record. 24. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the acquittal of the respondents, as recorded by the learned trial Court, is not justified and is contrary to the evidence on record. Consequently, we accept the appeal, set-aside the judgment dated 28.6.2003 of the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu thereby acquitting the respondents of the charge under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and resultantly hold both the respondents guilty of the offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and convict them accordingly. 25. Having accepted the appeal and consequently having convicted the respondents of the charge, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, we sentence them (the respondents) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 and in case of failure to pay the amount of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years each. 26. The two respondents who are on bail shall surrender to their bail bonds before the learned trial Court within four weeks from today to receive and serve out the sentence imposed upon them, failing which the learned trial Court shall proceed against them in accordance with law. 27. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of.