Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 495 (HP)

MANMOHAN SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2005-12-26

ABHILASHA KUMARI, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

body2005
JUDGMENT Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Manmohan Singh appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") has filed this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.7.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2001 under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS" Act). He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( rupees one lac) failing which, he was to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 2. The prosecution case is that on 6.4.2001 PW-12 Ashish Sharma Inspector/SHO, Police Station, Sadar Mandi alongwith PW-7 Sub-Inspector Brijesh Sood, ASI Ram Karan, ASI Raghubir Singh, Head Constable Kesar Singh, Constable Surjay Chand and Constable Jawala Ram was on routine patrol duty in the Seri Bazar Mandi. PW Ashish Sharma Inspector received a secret information at about 6.40 p.m. that Tourist bus bearing registration No. 1-1881 of Savagtam Travel coming from Manali on its way to Delhi, one person sitting on seat No. 31 of the said bus was carrying Charas in his bag. PW-12 the empowered officer reduced the information Ext. P-12/ A into writing under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. A copy of information Ext. PW-12/A was sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mandi under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act through PW-2 constable Udai Chand. The raiding party laid a Nakka at Pull Gharat on the road between Mandi town and Sundernagar. The bus reached at Pull Gharat at about 7.45 p.m. which was signalled to be stopped. PW-11 Krishan Chand, the driver of the bus stopped the vehicle and PW-10 Khem Ram was its conductor. PW-12 alongwith PW-7 Sub-Inspector Brijesh Sood and other police personnel entered the bus and found one person sitting therein on seat No. 31. The name and antecedents of the said person were enquired into by the police, who disclosed his name Manmohan Singh the present accused. PW-12 made enquiry from the accused about his luggage. PW-10 conductor of the bus disclosed that one bag owned by the accused was kept in the Dicky of the bus, on which he wrote seat No. 31 with chalk. The police personnel alongwith the accused and conductor got down from the bus. PW-8 Yog Raj a shopkeeper was called to join the investigation/search. PW-10 conductor of the bus disclosed that one bag owned by the accused was kept in the Dicky of the bus, on which he wrote seat No. 31 with chalk. The police personnel alongwith the accused and conductor got down from the bus. PW-8 Yog Raj a shopkeeper was called to join the investigation/search. On the Dicky of the bus being opened by the conductor, bag Ex. P-l was taken out which bag carried the label of Unex and on it, 31 was scribed with chalk. The accused is stated to have admitted the ownership of the bag. On opening the said bag few clothings were found in the main portion of the bag and from inside pocket one key containing four keys, one death certificate of one Sh. Dhola Singh (wrongly mentioned as Sh. Bhola Singh in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge) and one Maxima Quartaz guarantee card in the name of Manmohan was found. Inside the clothes, three parcels of polythene papers sealed with tape were found. When these three packets were opened, they were found to be containing Charas in card board boxes in different shapes and sizes. Constable Jawala Ram was sent for bringing weighing machine from Police Canteen which he brought the same and on weighing the Charas, it was found to be 7 kg. 500 gms. Two samples of 50 gms each of Charas were separated and sealed in three cigarette empty packets with seal impression T.. Residue Charas weighing 7 kg 400 grams was put in a polythene bag and wrapped with cloth and sealed with seal impression T. The seal after use was handed over to PW-8 Yog Raj. All the above stated articles were taken into possession through memos Ex. PW-7/A and the copy of memo was given to the accused. Thereafter the rukka Ex.PW-12/C was scribed on the spot and sent through H.C. Kesar Singh for registration of FIR to the Police Station. Travelling ticket of the accused was taken into possession through memo Ex. PW-7/C. It was found by the Investigating Officer that the conductor had retained all the tickets of the passengers with him. On the ticket the name of Subhash Chander was written and it was told by the conductor that this was the name revealed by the accused to him when he boarded the bus. PW-7/C. It was found by the Investigating Officer that the conductor had retained all the tickets of the passengers with him. On the ticket the name of Subhash Chander was written and it was told by the conductor that this was the name revealed by the accused to him when he boarded the bus. After this procedural formalities such as drawing site plan and marginal notes were completed, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW-12/H. Special report (Ex. PW-l/B) was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Mandi through constable Tulsi Ram vide rapat No. 21 dated 8.4.2001. On receipt of the Chemical Examiners report Ex. PW-12/K and NCB form Ex. PW-12/B, which contains the opinion of the Chemical Examiner to the effect that the exhibit contains the contents of Charas, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi who assigned the case for trial. 3. The accused was charge-sheeted for having committed the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses to substantiate its case. The accused, in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded false implication and did not intend to lead any evidence in defence. 5. The learned Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgment has convicted the accused under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of which, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for two months. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the present appeal. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State. 8. The learned Counsel for the accused has contended that in the NCB Form Ex. PW-12/B, at Serial No. 3 against the column for description of Drug and the weight of the sample, net weight, it has been mentioned "Charas in Coin, Cylindrical and Cake shape, 50 gm. 8. The learned Counsel for the accused has contended that in the NCB Form Ex. PW-12/B, at Serial No. 3 against the column for description of Drug and the weight of the sample, net weight, it has been mentioned "Charas in Coin, Cylindrical and Cake shape, 50 gm. and also at Serial No.7 against the column for description of Seal it is mentioned as T\ Whereas neither PW-7 Inspector Brijesh Sood nor PW-12 Inspector Ashish Sharma have stated that they have sealed the sample with three seals of seal impression T. PW-7 has stated that out of the recovered Charas two samples of 50 grams each were separated and put in empty packets of cigarette and separately sealed in two parcels with seal impression T by the SHO and the residue charas bundles were sealed in a separate parcel with seal impression "I". No mention is made of the number of seals put on the sample of the bulk of the case property. During the examination-in-chief the sealed parcel with seal impression T, seven in number were produced by the learned Public Prosecutor and was allowed to be opened which were sent by PW-7 and stated to be the same and recovered from the accused. Sample parcel which is Ex.P-12 is also stated to be the same and both these parcels contain signature of PW-7 and other witnesses. Similarly, PW-4 H.C. Nand Lai and PW-5 L.C. Sunita Devi have also not stated regarding the number of seals, although they have all stated that the sample of the bulk of the case property was sealed with seal impression "I". Further it has been urged by tho learned Counsel for the accused that the link evidence to the effect that NCB Form was deposited in the Malkhana or sent to the Laboratory is missing. In support of this he has referred to the testimony of PW-12 Inspector Ashish Sharma who states that he deposited the case alongwith NCB Form with Additional MHC of the Police Station, Sadar Mandi. Whereas PW-4 has denied that the Investigating Officer has deposited the NCB Form with him. Further, the FIR number has also been put on the NCB Form which shows that it was prepared later on. Whereas PW-4 has denied that the Investigating Officer has deposited the NCB Form with him. Further, the FIR number has also been put on the NCB Form which shows that it was prepared later on. Further another circumstance which cast doubt is that PW-12 states that the two samples of 50 grams each of Charas were separated and sealed in three empty cigarette packets and sealed with seal impression T’. There is no evidence on record as to what happened to the third cigarette packet. According to the learned Counsel for the accused, the discrepancy regarding the number of seals affixed on the sample of the bulk of the case property, the contradictions in the statements of PW-4 and PW-12 regarding the deposit of the NCB Form and the missing third empty cigarette packet, all cast a doubt upon the story of the prosecution. 9. The scrutiny of the evidence in this regard reveals that PW-7 Inspector Brijesh Sood states regarding the sealing of the sample and bulk of the case property at the spot. PW-12 Inspector Ashish Sharma has also stated that two samples of 50 grams each of Charas were separated and sealed in three empty cigarette packets and sealed with seal impression T and the remaining Charas of 7 kg. 400 grams was put in a polythene bag and wrapped with a cloth and also sealed with seal impression T. From the NCB Form Ex.PW-12/B, it is evident that the number of seal impressions put on the sample was three. This is fortified by perusal of Ex.PW-7/A which is the memo regarding the recovery and taking into possession of the Charas with the bag. This document states that two samples of 50 grams each were taken out separately out of the recovered Charas for chemical test and kept in two cigarette packets having the label of "Prince". Thereafter, each packet was sealed with three seals bearing impression "I". The remaining 7 kg. and 400 grams of Charas was put into a polythene bag which was then made into a cloth parcel and sealed with 7 seals bearing impression T. This recovery memo has been signed by Krishan Chand PW-11 (driver), Khem Raj PW-10 (conductor) and PW-8 Yog Raj, all three of whom are independent witnesses, and also by PW-7 Brijesh Sood, in addition to the accused. The authenticity of this document has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the accused. We are therefore, convinced that there is no confusion regarding the number of seals on the sample of the case property, which is satisfactorily explained from the record. Moreover, Ex. PW-7/A makes it clear that the samples were put into two empty cigarettes packets and not into three packets. It can be possible that three packets were brought but only two packets were used for keeping the samples. 10. The learned Counsel for the accused has relied upon the Latest Himachal Law Judgments 2005 (HP) 996 titled Ramesh Kumar v. State of H.P. In this case it has been held that the prosecution is obliged to lead link evidence from the stage of taking the sample till its examination by the Chemical Examiner, in order to connect the ample with the recovered contraband and in the absence of such evidence, the person alleged to be in possession of such contraband unlawfully cannot be convicted. In the present case, the prosecution has been able to prove that the sample of the contraband which was examined by the Chemical Examiner is connected with the contraband which has been recovered from the- possession of the accused, therefore, the ratio of Ramesh Kumar case supra will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. On the other hand the learned Additional Advocate General has relied upon 2002 Cri. L.J. 1832 titled Khet Singh v. Union of India. Para-16 of the said judgment is reproduced as follows:— 12. "P-16. Law on the point is very clear that even if there is any sort of procedural illegality in conducting the search and seizure, the evidence collected thereby will not become inadmissible and the Court would consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice had been caused to the accused. If the search and seizure was in complete defiance of the law and procedure and there was any possibility of the evidence collected likely to have been tampered with or interpolated during the course of such search or seizure, then, it could be said that the evidence is not liable to be admissible in evidence". 13. If the search and seizure was in complete defiance of the law and procedure and there was any possibility of the evidence collected likely to have been tampered with or interpolated during the course of such search or seizure, then, it could be said that the evidence is not liable to be admissible in evidence". 13. The learned Additional Advocate General relying upon this judgment, has urged that even if it is assumed, that there is some procedural illegality in conducting the search and seizure, the evidence collected thereby will not become inadmissible and the accused has failed to show that any serious prejudice had been caused to him. 14. After careful consideration of the rival contentions and the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that no serious prejudice has been caused to the accused since there has been no breach of the law during search and seizure. There is nothing on record to prove that the case property is not the same as that which was sent for chemical analysis and in respect of which the Chemical Examiner has opined that the exhibit contains the contents of Charas, vide NCB Form Ex. PW-12/B. Mere mention of the number of the FIR on the NCB Form does not cost any doubt in the face of the other material available on record. The contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that the link evidence connecting the sample to the bulk of the case property alleged to have been taken into possession from the accused is missing, therefore, cannot be accepted. 15. The next contention urged by the learned Counsel for the accused is that the prosecution has committed a violation of Section 42 (Proviso) of the NDPS Act and since it was a case of secret information received on the basis of which the accused was apprehended, the empowered officer was required to record his grounds of belief that a search warrant or authorization could not be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence of facility for the escape of an offender, before he search the luggage of the accused between sunrise and sunset, which has not been done. It is vehemently contended that since the mandatory provisions of Section 42 (Proviso) have not been complied with, the entire proceedings and consequently the trial, is vitiated for switch non-compliance. It is vehemently contended that since the mandatory provisions of Section 42 (Proviso) have not been complied with, the entire proceedings and consequently the trial, is vitiated for switch non-compliance. In support of this contention, learned Counsel his placed reliance of Latest HLJ 2005 (HP) page 837 titled Dev Raj v. State of H.P. In this case, the prosecution had set up the case of chance recovery. However, on the reappraisal of the evidence, this Court has found that it was a case of prior information and in that eventuality Sections 41(1) and 42 of the NDPS Act would apply, which were not complied with. The ratio of this case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Admittedly, the present case is a case where the police received prior secret information that a Tourist bus bearing No. HP-01-1881 was coming from Manali and seat No. 31 of that bus was being occupied by a man who was carrying Charas in his bag. However, the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) and (2) of the NDPS Act have been complied with in the present case. The information was recorded in writing and the same was dispatched to the DSP H.Q., through Constable Udai Chand. This information is on the record as Ex.PW-12/A. Moreover, it is not the case of the learned Counsel for the acgused that the mandatory provisions of Section 41(1) and (2) have not been complied with. Rather, he has confined his arguments to the alleged non-compliance of the provisions of the Proviso to Section 42. According to him, the search and consequent recovery between sunrise and sunset was effected. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the empowered officer to record the grounds of his belief that such search could not have been conducted without affording an opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of the offender. Since the grounds of belief were not recorded, such search of the conveyance was undertaken without authorization. Further, it has been urged that since the bus is a conveyance and the proviso to Section 42 also applies to a conveyance, the provisions of this Section would be applicable in the present case and non-compliance thereof would vitiate the entire proceedings, including the trial. 16. Further, it has been urged that since the bus is a conveyance and the proviso to Section 42 also applies to a conveyance, the provisions of this Section would be applicable in the present case and non-compliance thereof would vitiate the entire proceedings, including the trial. 16. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the Proviso to Section 42 will not be applicable in this case since the recovery was effected when the bus was in transit and therefore. Section 43 of the NDPS Act would apply. In any case, there has been strict compliance of Section 42(1) and (2) and since the proviso to Section 42 is inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that there is any violation of the mandatory provision of Section 42. We find that there is considerable force in the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General. For the sake of clarity Section 43 of the NDPS Act is reproduced as under:— "Section 43- Power of seizure and arrest in public place.—Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 may— (a) seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under this Act has been committed, and, alongwith such drug or substance, any animal or conveyance or article liable to confiscation under this Act, any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under this Act or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter V-A of this Act; (b) detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under this act, and if such person has any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in his possession and such possession appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him and any other person in his company. Explanation.—For the purposes of this Section, the expression "public place" includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public." 17. Explanation.—For the purposes of this Section, the expression "public place" includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public." 17. Applying the provisions of this Section to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the seizure of the contraband was made at Pull Gharat, which is a public place. The seizure was made from the bus in which the accused was travelling, which bus was in transit. The explanation to this Section further elaborates that "public place" also includes any public conveyance intended for use by, or accessible to the public. In our view Section 43 of the NDPS Act is squarely applicable in the present case and the Proviso to Section 42 will, therefore, not be applicable. The provisions of Section 43 do not call for any reasons to be recorded, as is the requirement of Section 42 (Proviso). The contention that the search was made between sunrise and sunset and reasons were required to be recorded, is not therefore, legally sustainable. This view is fortified by the judgment relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General in (2004) 5 SCC 188 titled State of Haryana v. Jarnail Singh and others. The facts are almost similar to those of the case in hand. In that case the vehicle was a tanker moving on the highway whereas in the present case it is a bus in transit. The ratio of this judgment will be squarely applicable to the present case as well. The Honble Apex Court has observed in paragraphs-8, 9 and 10 of this judgment as under:— "8. Section 43 of the NDPS Act provides that any officer of any of the Departments mentioned in Section 42 may seize in any public place or in transit any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, etc. in respect of which he has reason to believe that an offence punishable under the Act has been committed. He is also authorized to detain and search any person who, he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under the Act. Explanation to Section 43 lays down that for the purposes of this Section, the expression "public place" includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public. 9. Sections 42 and 43, therefore, contemplate two different situations. Explanation to Section 43 lays down that for the purposes of this Section, the expression "public place" includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public. 9. Sections 42 and 43, therefore, contemplate two different situations. Section 42 contemplates entry .into and search of any building, conveyance or enclosed place, while Section 43 contemplates a seizure made in any public place or in transit. If seizure is made under Section 42 between sunset and sunrise, the requirement of the proviso thereto has to be complied with. There is no such proviso in Section 43 of the Act and, therefore, it is obvious that if a public conveyance is searched in a public place, the officer making the search is not required to record his satisfaction as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act for searching the vehicle between sunset and sunrise. 10. In the instant case there is no dispute that the tanker was moving on the public highway when it was stopped and searched. Section 43 therefore clearly applied to the facts of this case. Such being the factual position there was no requirement of the officer conducting the search to record the grounds of his belief as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42. Moreover it cannot be lost sight of that the Superintendent of Police was also a member of the searching party." 18. It has been held by this Court in G. Srinivas Goud v. State of A.P., (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 183, that where a search is conducted by a gazetted officer himself acting under Section 41 of the NDPS Act, it was not necessary to comply with the requirement of Section 42. For this reason also, in the facts of this case, it was not necessary to comply with the requirement of the proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act. 19. Following the ratio of this judgment we are of the opinion that it was not necessary to comply with the requirement of the proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act, since Section 43 of the NDPS Act would apply. The argument of the learned Counsel for the accused that the case falls under the proviso to Section 42 therefore, cannot be accepted. 20. The next contention of the. The argument of the learned Counsel for the accused that the case falls under the proviso to Section 42 therefore, cannot be accepted. 20. The next contention of the. learned Counsel for the accused is that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that the contraband was seized from the bag belonging to the accused and that the accused is the owner of the bag from which the recovery was made, therefore the identity of the accused qua the said bag has not been sufficiently established. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the recovery of the contraband was effected from the bag which belongs to the accused. 21. Per contra the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the accused has admitted that the bag belongs to him and this is evident from the statement of PW-7 Inspector Brijesh Sood and PW-12 Inspector Ashish Sharma. Since this admission was made at a time when he was not an accused in this case, it cannot be said to be either a confession or an incriminating admission, therefore, the same is admissible in evidence. Further, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has admitted that he was travelling in the bus. PW-7 also states that admission of the accused that the bag belonged to him was also confirmed by the PW-10, Conductor of the bus. In order to come to the conclusion whether the accused has been sufficiently connected with the bag from which the Charas has been recovered and whether his ownership thereof has been established or not, we have minutely scrutinized the evidence and documents on record 22. It is the case of the prosecution that when the bag was opened, apart from a few clothes and four keys, one death certificate of one Dhola Singh and one Maxima Quartz guarantee card in the name of the accused were also found. The death certificate is on record as Ex.P-10. A perusal of the same reveals that the death certificate pertains to one Dhola Singh who is the son of Sh. Anup Ram. The said Dhola Singh is purported to have died on 1.3.2001 and the place of his death is Tandi. The death certificate has been issued by Panchayat Shikari Ghat, Banjar, District Kullu. The accused Manmohan Singh is the son of Sh. Anup Ram. The said Dhola Singh is purported to have died on 1.3.2001 and the place of his death is Tandi. The death certificate has been issued by Panchayat Shikari Ghat, Banjar, District Kullu. The accused Manmohan Singh is the son of Sh. Anup Ram, resident of Tandi, Police Station and Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. The name and address of the father of the accused and the father of the deceased person whose death certificate has been recovered from the bag of the accused is also the same. This does show some kind of connection with the accused. Since this death certificate was recovered from the bag of the accused, it can be safely said that the accused is connected to the bag from which the Charas was recovered. Moreover, the Maxima Quartz guarantee card was also found in the bag from which the contraband was recovered. This is on record as Ex.P-9. The name of the accused is written on the reverse of the said guarantee card which is dated 23.1.2001. This document also directly connects the accused with the bag. It has come in the evidence of PW-7 and PW-12 that when the bus in which the accused was travelling reached Pull Gharat, it was stopped by the police and PW- 12 Inspector Ashish Sharma, PW-7 Sub-Inspector Brijesh Sood and other police officials entered the bus and found the accused sitting on seat No. 31 of the bus. On enquiry being made about the luggage of the accused, the conductor (PW-10) revealed that the bag of the accused was kept in the dicky of the bus and that he has written No. 31 on the said bag with chalk. The ticket issued to the accused was also of seat No. 31. Although, the conductor Khem Raj (PW-10) and the driver Krishan Chand (PW-11 ) have not supported the version of the prosecution and were declared hostile, there is ample evidence on record that the bag of the accused kept in the dicky had No. 31 scribed upon it with chalk. The recovery memo regarding the recovery and taking into possession of the Charas with the bag is on record as Ex. PW-7 /A. This recovery memo has been prepared in the presence of PW-11 Krishan Chand driver, PW-10 Khem Raj conductor, PW-7 Inspector Brijesh Sood and PW-8 Yog Raj. PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11 are independent witnesses. The recovery memo regarding the recovery and taking into possession of the Charas with the bag is on record as Ex. PW-7 /A. This recovery memo has been prepared in the presence of PW-11 Krishan Chand driver, PW-10 Khem Raj conductor, PW-7 Inspector Brijesh Sood and PW-8 Yog Raj. PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11 are independent witnesses. This recovery memo has also been signed by the accused. The recovery memo describes the contents of the blue and brown coloured bag in which white coloured label of "UNEX" and mark 31 written with chalk and kept by the accused who was the passenger sitting on seat No. 31. Rukka Ex. PW-6/A and the FIR Ex.PW-6/B also carries the description of the contents of the bag of the accused. It is clearly mentioned that on the bag No. 31 is scribed in chalk and that the person occupying the seat No. 31 in the bus disclosed his name as Manmohan Singh son of Anup Ram. The other contents of bag including the clothes, the death certificate of one Dhola Singh and one Maxima Quartz guarantee card having the name of Manmohan Singh alongwith the date 23.1.2001, have also been clearly mentioned. The contents of these documents tally with the recovery memo Ex.PW-7/A which has been signed by the accused alongwith the driver, conductor and other independent witness namely Yog Raj. It is true that PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11 have turned hostile to the prosecution but their not having supported the prosecution case will not have an adverse impact in view of the other convincing material on record connecting the accused with the bag from which the Charas was recovered. There is no reason to disbelieve the police witnesses solely for the reason that they were the members of the raiding party or to discard their evidence on the ground that they are official witnesses, when their testimonies corroborated by the other material on record. It is not the case of the learned Counsel for the accused that the documents in this case have been falsified by the prosecution and therefore, cannot be believed. 23. As a result of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the accused was in exclusive and conscious possession of the bag from which the Charas was recovered and that his ownership of the bag has been sufficiently established. 23. As a result of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the accused was in exclusive and conscious possession of the bag from which the Charas was recovered and that his ownership of the bag has been sufficiently established. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that the prosecution has not been able to establish the ownership of the accused with the bag from which Charas was recovered or to connect him with the recovered contraband. 24. In view of the reliable, cogent and confidence inspiring evidence of the official witnesses and other corroborating evidence as already discussed, the accused has rightly been convicted and sentenced. Therefore, there is no merit and substance in this appeal and the impugned conviction and sentence does not call for any interference by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.