Judgment Pritam Pal, J. 1. Appellants Sakattar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, have brought this appeal against the judgment and order dated August 22, 1996, whereby they were convicted under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs. one lac each. Further, in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo. R.I. for two years each, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. 2. In nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be re-capitulated thus : 3. On June 16, 1989, at about 30 (sic) p.m. Iqbal Singh, D.S.P. P.W. 2 (the then Sub Inspector) along with police party consisting of Darshan Singh ASI (now Sub Inspector) P.W. 3 and Hardev Singh ASI (now Sub Inspector) and other police officials of the C.R.P.F. was present in the area of Police Station, Sadar, Ferozepur. When the police party reached two furlong short from village Khai towards Ferozepur, a tractor of red colour bearing registration No. HRT-2441, was seen coming from the opposite direction. There were three persons on that tractor including the driver. Each of the occupant of the tractor was carrying a bag in his right lap. On seeing the police party, the driver and the occupants sitting on the MUD-Guard of the tractor were scared. That created a suspicion. Thereupon, all the three persons sitting on the said tractor were cordoned and captured. On enquiry made by Iqbal Singh S.I. the person driving the tractor gave his name as Sakattar Singh (hereinafter referred to as appellant No. 1) resident of village, Bagrian, Police Station, Tarn Taran and the person sitting on the right MUD-Guard of the tractor disclosed his name as Mukhtiar Singh (Mazbi Sikh) (hereinafter referred to as appellant No. 2) of the same village, while the third person sitting on the left Mud-Guard gave his name as Balwinder Singh son of Balli, resident of Phaphi Jaimal Singh now Killa Ki Patti (since declared proclaimed offender). Thereafter, Iqbal Singh S.I. after disclosing his identity, conducted the personal search of the appellants as per law laid down under the Act. In that behalf, he also prepared a separate memo Ex. PA. Thereafter, Iqbal Singh S.I. after disclosing his identity, conducted the personal search of the appellants as per law laid down under the Act. In that behalf, he also prepared a separate memo Ex. PA. Then, all the three persons were also given an option of being searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, but they reposed confidence in the police officer Iqbal Singh and as such, they agreed to be searched by him, for which another consent memo Ex. PB was prepared at the spot which was attested by Darshan Singh S.I. and Hardev Singh S.I. 4. First of all, Iqbal Singh S. I. conducted search of the bag carried by appellant No. 1 Sakattar Singh in accordance with the rules on the subject and recovered 21 kg of opium wrapped in a glazed paper from the said bag carried by him in his lap. He then separated a sample of 100 grams from the opium recovered from Sakattar Singh and put the same in a DABBI (a small tin box). After that, he made separate parcels of the remaining opium. Then, he sealed both the parcels with the seal impressions bearing letters IS. A separate specimen seal impression was also prepared. Thereafter, parcel of remaining opium Ex. P1, empty bag Ex. P.2 and a sample seal Ex. P3 were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. P.C. Thereafter, accused Mukhtiar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the second appellant) was also searched in respect of the bag carried by him. Consequently, 20 kg of opium was recovered from his possession. A sample of 100 grams was separated from the bulk opium. Then the sample as well as the remaining opium were made into two separate parcels and sealed with the same seal impression IS. These parcels were then taken into possession from the second appellant vide recovery memo Ex. PD duly attested by said Darshan Singh ASI and Hardev Singh ASI. The third accused, namely, Balwinder Singh, was also searched and 19 kg of opium was also recovered from his possession and after having been challaned in this case, he did not appear before the trial Court and ultimately, this accused was declared proclaimed offender in this case. The tractor Ex. P.7 aforesaid was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. The tractor Ex. P.7 aforesaid was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PE and thereafter, both the appellants and accused Balwinder Singh (since declared proclaimed offender) were apprised of the grounds of arrest vide recovery memo Ex. PF duly attested by the aforesaid two ASI i.e. Darshan Singh and Hardev Singh and thumb marked by Sakattar Singh appellant No. 1 and signed by second appellant Mukhtiar Singh appellant No. 2. Since none of the appellants could produce any licence or permit for keeping the opium in their possession, therefore, ruqa Ex. PG was sent to the Police Station, Sadar Ferozepur, through Constable Malkiat Singh and ultimately, FIR Ex. PG/1 was recorded by Joginder Kumar, S.H.O. Iqbal Singh is the Investigating Officer in this case. He prepared the rough site plan Ex. PH of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes in his hand. He then recorded the statements of the witnesses also and arrested the appellants. On return to the Police Station, he produced the case property as well as specimen seal impressions before S.I. Joginder Kumar S.H.O. P.W. 5, who in turn, put his seal bearing impression JK on all the parcels. 5. On the next date i.e. June 17, 1989, Joginder Kumar SHO produced the case property before the learned Magistrate, and then on his direction, the same was deposited in the Government treasury, while the three samples along with the sample seals were kept by him for sending the same to the Chemical Examiner. 6. On June 21.1989. Joginder Kumar SHO handed over all the three samples along with the sample seals to Constable Gurcharan Singh P.W. 4, who deposited the same on the next date i.e. June 22, 1989 in the office of the Chemical Examiner, Bathinda. Gurcharan Singh P.W. 4 also proved his affidavit Ex. PL and had also taken receipt with regard to the deposit of the aforesaid samples, handed over the same to Joginder Kumar SHO. On receipt of the reports Exs. PK and PJ from the Chemical Examiner and after completion of the formal investigation, the appellants were challaned in this case. 7. It is also to add here that during the pendency of this case, the appellants too were declared proclaimed offenders. However, at a later stage, they were rearrested and then charge-sheeted vide order dated August 8, 1994 by the learned trial Court. 8. 7. It is also to add here that during the pendency of this case, the appellants too were declared proclaimed offenders. However, at a later stage, they were rearrested and then charge-sheeted vide order dated August 8, 1994 by the learned trial Court. 8. The learned trial Court In order to substantiate its case examined as many as five witnesses in this case, namely P.W. 1 Daljit Singh Retired Inspector of Police. P.W. 2 Iqbal Singh DSP. P.W. 3 Darshan Singh S.I. P.W. 4 Constable Gurcharan Singh and P.W. 5 Joginder Kumar DSP. 9. After closure of the prosecution case, the appellants were examined in terms of their statements under Section 313, Cr. P.C. wherein they denied all the allegations levelled against them. In defence, one D.W. 1 namely Karnail Singh son of Sudagar Singh was also examined. 10. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated in the opening part of the judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellants have come up in this appeal. 11. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 12. In this case, the learned Counsel for the appellants has put forth his three-fold arguments. At the first place, he argued that in this case, occurrence is of day time and on the main metalled road but no independent witness was joined by the police. At the second place, the tractor Ex. P-7 produced in the trial Court was not the same which was allegedly recovered from the appellants. In that behalf, the learned Counsel for the appellants also made reference to the condition of the tractor which was damaged in two parts. At the last leg of his argument, it was vehemently submitted that in this case, the sample seal which was used on the case properly as well as the sample parcel was not proved to have been sent to the Chemical Examiner and as such, link evidence is missing in this case, and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to acquittal on his aforesaid three points of arguments. In support of his arguments learned Counsel has relied upon the case laws reported in Kulwant Singh V/s. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) Rec Cri R 673. In support of his arguments learned Counsel has relied upon the case laws reported in Kulwant Singh V/s. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) Rec Cri R 673. Valsala V/s. State of Kerala, 1993 (1) Chand CM C 180 : (1994 CM LJ 1) (SC) and Mool Chand V/s. State, 1993 (1) Chand CM C 564. 13. On the other hand, Smt. R. K. Nihalsinghwala learned D.A.G. Punjab, repelled the aforesaid points of arguments raised on behalf of the appellants and then submitted that in all, huge quantity of 41 Kg of opium was recovered from the appellants by the police officials against whom, no bias or animus is alleged or proved by the appellants. At the same time, she also made reference to the statement of P.W. 2 Iqbal Singh, who is the investigating Officer in this case wherein he categorically stated that he tried to join independent witnesses in this case but nobody was ready to join. She then contended for the dismissal of this appeal. 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised on behalf of the learned Counsel for the parties, and find no force in any of the above pleas putforth on behalf of the appellants inasmuch as Iqbal Singh DSP, who appeared as P.W. 2 in this case has categorically stated that he did his best to associate non-official witnesses but they all refused to come forward for joining the Investigation. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the days of the occurrence of this case terrorism was on the peak in the State of Punjab and as such, no public man used to come forward to be associated as a witness of the police. The present case is of a chance recovery that too is clear from the occupants of the tractor which was going on the main G.T. Road. At such a place, people going on the high way would be hesitant in stopping and becoming the witnesses of the police. Even otherwise, if we go by the evidence consisting in the statement of the aforesaid five official witnesses, it goes a long way to inspire confidence that both the appellants are connected with the commission of crime. The testimony of the police witnesses cannot be discarded just on the ground of their having an official status. 15. Even otherwise, if we go by the evidence consisting in the statement of the aforesaid five official witnesses, it goes a long way to inspire confidence that both the appellants are connected with the commission of crime. The testimony of the police witnesses cannot be discarded just on the ground of their having an official status. 15. Coming to the second contention of learned Counsel for the appellants in this case, the tractor Ex. P7 was taken into possession by the police on June 16, 1989 and admittedly, the same was produced in the trial Court on July 24, 1996 i.e. after about seven years from the Malkhana of the police. If a vehicle was lying parked in an open area continuously for seven years, then it is but: natural that parts of such a vehicle would go out of order. As explained by the witnesses at the trial, the same could not be kept intact. However, whatever the condition of the tractor was, that was produced in the Court in the same condition. 16. Now adverting to the last contention regarding missing of link evidence as the sample seal used on the case property and the samples were not proved to have been sent to the Chemical Examiner. In this regard, objection raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants fails to carry any conviction with me inasmuch as it is categorically proved by the affidavit Ex. PL of P.W. 4 Constable Gurcharan Singh that on June 21, 1989 he had taken the sample parcels as well as the sample seal from P.W. 5 Joginder Kumar DSP, the then SHO for being deposited in the office of Chemical Examiner. In turn, it is also there on the file that those sample seals tallied with the seal impression affixed on the parcels of the sample prepared at the spot. Therefore, from the statements of P.W. 2 Iqbal Singh DSP, P.W. 4 Constable Gurcharan Singh, P.W. 5 Joginder Kumar DSP and also the reports of Chemical Examiner Exs. PJ and PK, it is well established that the case property was recovered from the appellants and the same was found to be the contraband substance opium. I have also gone through the above three rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants and find that the facts contained therein are quite at variance from the facts of the case in hand. I have also gone through the above three rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants and find that the facts contained therein are quite at variance from the facts of the case in hand. Hence, no benefit can be derived by the appellants from the observations made therein by their Lordships. 17. In this view of the foregoing discussion, all the points raised on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellants are devoid of any merit. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.