Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. Sandeep Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Sarwan Singh were tried by the Judge, Special Court, Chandigarh, for possession of 9 kgs. smack (heroin) which they were transporting in car DL-3-CA-9406 on June 3, 1999 when the car was stopped by the police on the basis of a secret information. The learned Judge Special Court found all the accused guilty under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years each and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac each, in default of payment of fine, the accused were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. 2. According to the prosecution, on June 3, 1999 a police party headed by Inspector Jasbir Singh (J.S. Cheema) (PW-5) was present at the small roundabout between Sectors 35-36 in connection with general checking. The other members of the police party were Sub Inspector Bhupinder Singh, Sub Inspector Balwan Singh, ASI Tarsem Singh, HC Mohan Singh, HC Des Raj, HC Bhajan Singh and Constable Rajinder Singh. The police party had travelled in vehicle CH01-G-9691 driven by C. Siri Ram. HC Manmohan Singh and C. Harbhajan Singh were also present. 3. Inspector Jasbir Singh (PW-5) was met by Harpal Singh (PW-1) and Vijay Kumar. These two persons started conversing with Inspector Jasbir Singh. While they were talking, Inspector Jasbir Singh received information that the accused were coming to Chandigarh in Maruti car DL-3CA-9406 with a large quantity of smack and would pass by this road. 4. On the basis of this information, Inspector Jasbir Singh immediately sent a report containing the details of the accused, their parentage and addresses to DSP Surjit Singh (PW-2), while he himself got busy in keeping a close vigil on all vehicles approaching Chandigarh. At 4.30 p.m. car DL-3CA-9406 came from Attwa Chowk towards Sector 35-36. The car was being driven by Sandeep Singh. Sukhwinder Singh was sitting on the front seat of the car while Sarwan Singh was sitting on the rear seat. The car was stopped. Inspector Jasbir Singh immediately informed DSP Surjit Singh on telephone and requested him to reach the spot. DSP Surjit Singh reached at 5 p.m. and introduced himself to the accused. Thereafter, the car was searched. Sandeep Singh was found in possession of 1 kg. The car was stopped. Inspector Jasbir Singh immediately informed DSP Surjit Singh on telephone and requested him to reach the spot. DSP Surjit Singh reached at 5 p.m. and introduced himself to the accused. Thereafter, the car was searched. Sandeep Singh was found in possession of 1 kg. of smack, Sukhwinder Singh was also carrying one kg of smack. However, Sarwan Singh was carrying 7 packets of smack which on being weighed were found to be 7 kgs. 5. Samples of 50 grams were taken from each packet. The samples and the remaining smack were taken into possession. The accused were arrested. Report of seizure was sent to Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh on the basis of which the case was registered under Section 21 of the Act. The samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. It was reported that the sample contained diacetylmorphine (heroin). 6. After completion of the investigation, the accused were sent up for trial. At the trial charges were framed under Section 21 of the Act against all the three accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined Harpal Singh (PW-1), DSP Surjit Singh (PW-2), C. Yashpal (PW-3), SI Ram Dhari (PW-4), Inspector Jasbir Singh (J.S. Cheema) (PW-5), Dr. R.M. Tripathi (PW-6), C. Rajinder Kumar (PW-7), SHO PS Chadha (PW-8), HC Satbir Singh (PW-9) and Sukhwir Singh Rana (PW-10). 7. After concluding the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the evidence which appeared against them and pleaded false implication. Sandeep Singh stated as follows :- "This is a false case and PWs are deposing falsely. PW Vijay Kumar has been withheld by the prosecution. PW-Harpal @ Raju is a stock witness of police. He is shady character. He is facing trial in case FIR No. 182/99, PS Sector 36, Chandigarh under Section 21 NDPS Act in this Court and the same is fixed for 21.11.2001. He was also arrested and prosecuted in case FIR No. 162 dated 11.10.1999 under Section 21 NDPS Act, PS Mohali, Punjab in the Court of Mrs. Sabina, Judge Special Court, Ropar. His wife is also a witness in NDPS case and appeared in the Court of Sh. GS Sandhu, the then, Judge Special Court, Chandigarh. He was also arrested and prosecuted in case FIR No. 162 dated 11.10.1999 under Section 21 NDPS Act, PS Mohali, Punjab in the Court of Mrs. Sabina, Judge Special Court, Ropar. His wife is also a witness in NDPS case and appeared in the Court of Sh. GS Sandhu, the then, Judge Special Court, Chandigarh. Harpal Singh @ Raju had also appeared as a witness in a case under Section 21 of NDPS Act against Francis. He has also appeared as a prosecution witness in an another case of NDPS Act. Since police officials are interested witnesses and are deposing falsely for getting applause from their superiors. xx xx xx xx xx xx I along with my co-accused had come to Chandigarh to get myself treated from PGI as I am suffering from Hepatitis-C for which the medical record has been placed on the judicial file and the medical record of PGI is Mark-D1. The police apprehended one Tejinder Singh s/o Hardyal Singh, R/o Village Tungbale, Distt. Amritsar, Punjab and we were passing from the place of apprehension of Tejinder Singh. In the first instance they made us to become a witness, we declined, thereafter, the police made hanky-panky with Tejinder Singh and for their ulterior motive, he was let off and this case was falsely foisted on us. Initially police took driving licence and insurance certificate of Tejinder Singh but the same were returned to him." 8 To similar effect were the statements made by Sukhwinder Singh and Sarwan Singh. When the accused were called upon to enter defence, they examined several witnesses to establish the antecedents of Harpal Singh (PW-1). HC Harbans Singh (DW-1) testified that Harpal Singh had been convicted under Section 379 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months by Sh. Mandeep Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar in FIR No. 83 dated November 16, 1996, registered at Police Station Sohana, District Ropar. HC Satnam Singh (DW-2) stated that Harpal Singh had been declared a proclaimed offender on January 17, 1997 in a case registered under the provisions of NDPS Act, vide FIR No. 160 dated April 26, 1993 lodged at Police Station Central, Chandigarh. C. Bahadur Singh (DW-3) testified that Harpal Singh had been arrested on April, 28, 1997 in a case under Section 454/380 IPC based on FIR No. 12 dated January 18, 1994 registered at Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh. C. Bahadur Singh (DW-3) testified that Harpal Singh had been arrested on April, 28, 1997 in a case under Section 454/380 IPC based on FIR No. 12 dated January 18, 1994 registered at Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh. HC Mukh Ram (DW-4) testified that a case had been registered against Harpal Singh under Section 454/380 IPC vide FIR No. 71 dated June 17, 1995 registered at Police Station 36, Chandigarh. HC Ravinder Singh (DW-5) stated that Harpal Singh was arrested in a case registered under Section 380/457 IPC vide FIR No. 116 dated June 10, 1996 at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh. The judgment of learned Judge, Special Court, Chandigarh dated November 6, 2000 in case State v. Francis Obuseh under Section 21 of the Act was placed on record. In this case, Harpal Singh had appeared as PW-11 and DSP Surjit Singh had appeared as PW-8. 9. While holding that Harpal Singh (PW-1) was not a person of repute because he was facing criminal trials and had also appeared in the Courts as a witness, the learned trial Judge felt that not much credence could be placed on his evidence. However, the evidence of DSP Surjit Singh (PW-2), Inspector Jasbir Singh (PW-5) and SI Sukhwir Singh Rana (PW-10) was accepted. It was also held that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act had been complied with inasmuch as the secret information had been reduced into writing and had been sent to DSP Surjit Singh. Provisions of Section 50 of the Act were held to be inapplicable to the present case because recovery had not been effected from the person but the baggage of the accused persons. Thus even if the option or offer given to the accused was not in proper form, it would not give them any benefit. Provisions of Sections 52-A and 53-A of the Act, though not strictly complied with, would not be applicable to the present case as non-compliance had not caused any prejudice to the accused. There was delay of 5 days in sending the sample but this was not sufficient to hold that the prosecution case was without any evidence. The link evidence was found to be complete and, therefore, keeping all the factors into consideration the accused were found guilty and sentenced, as aforesaid. 10. There was delay of 5 days in sending the sample but this was not sufficient to hold that the prosecution case was without any evidence. The link evidence was found to be complete and, therefore, keeping all the factors into consideration the accused were found guilty and sentenced, as aforesaid. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial Court had based its conviction on testimonies of police officials after disbelieving Harpal Singh (PW-1). Once an independent witness had been disbelieved on the ground that he was not a person of repute and that he was facing a criminal trial, it would be unsafe to base conviction on testimonies of police officials, namely, DSP Surjit Singh (PW-2) and Inspector Jasbir Singh (PW-5). There was another independent witness Vijay Kumar who had not been examined and presumption could be drawn against the prosecution that in case that witness had been examined he would not have supported the prosecution case. It was also argued that sample seal had not been sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. The FSL form was not produced. As regards provisions of Section 50 of the Act, it was argued that the packet lying between the legs of Sandeep Singh was inextricably attached to Sandeep Singh, therefore, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act would come into operation. Reliance was placed upon the case State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar, 2005(2) RCR(Crl.) 622 : 2005(2) Apex Criminal 1 : 2005(4) SCC 350. (In Pawan Kumars case the accused was carrying a string bag on the shoulder while in the connected appeal the accused was standing at a Bus Stand with an attache case in his hand). 11. The first and foremost question which arises for consideration is whether Inspector Jasbir Singh (PW-5) had credible and reliable information with him regarding the arrival of the accused in a car carrying smack was imminent. In this case, the Investigating Officer had sent the report regarding the secret information to DSP Surjit Singh. This report contained all details which the informer had conveyed to the Inspector Jasbir Singh, like the names of the accused, their fathers names and addresses. The number of the car was also mentioned and it was stated that the accused were carrying a large quantity of smack in the car. This report contained all details which the informer had conveyed to the Inspector Jasbir Singh, like the names of the accused, their fathers names and addresses. The number of the car was also mentioned and it was stated that the accused were carrying a large quantity of smack in the car. They were coming from Amritsar to Chandigarh were going to pass along this way. This report was sent by Inspector Jasbir Singh at 4.10 p.m. on June 3, 1999 and was received by DSP Surjit Singh at 4.20 p.m. The accused approached the police at 4.30 p.m. The car was searched when the DSP Surjit Singh reached the spot and 9 kgs of smack was recovered from the car, 1 kg from Sandeep Singh, 1 kg from Sukhwinder Singh and 7 packets of 1 kg each from Sarwan Singh. It is obvious that the person who informed the Investigating Officer was dead certain that the accused would come that way in a car. It was a case of the accused being betrayed by some one who knew about their movements, their identities and their activities. That person may have been the one who may have got them the contraband goods. Illegal trading of contraband drugs is conducted by criminal characters who have no loyalty or friends. Such people do not hesitate to betray their comrades. It is obvious that the appellants were transporters/carriers who got caught in their attempt to smuggle smack into Chandigarh. The secret information was certainly reliable as it led to the interception and arrest of the accused within a short time. The information had also been sent to the senior officers in accordance with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, therefore, it could not be said to be a concocted piece of information or something that was an afterthought. 12. We are not at all convinced that in Sandeep Singhs case provisions of Section 50 of the Act had been violated. Sandeep Singh was driving the car and the packet of 1 kg smack was lying between his legs. It was certainly not inextricably attached to his person who may require a personal search. 12. We are not at all convinced that in Sandeep Singhs case provisions of Section 50 of the Act had been violated. Sandeep Singh was driving the car and the packet of 1 kg smack was lying between his legs. It was certainly not inextricably attached to his person who may require a personal search. In Pawan Kumars case (supra), Honble the Supreme Court had disagreed with the High Court and held that Section 50 of the Act would not be available to Pawan Kumar who was carrying a shoulder bag and likewise it would not be available to Bhanwar Lal who was carrying an attache case. Similarly this provision would not be available to Sandeep Singh who was carrying the packet containing the contraband between his legs. The prosecution had succeeded in establishing that the car in which the appellants were travelling had been intercepted on the basis of reliable information. Corroboration of this information was available in the form of the report sent under Section 42 of the Act. Thereafter, the car was stopped and searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. The accused were found to be carrying a huge quantity of smack. Senior Scientific Officer (Toxicology) Dr. R.M. Tripathi (PW-6) conducted chemical examination of the light brown coloured powder which had been sent to him for analysis and found that it contained diacetylmorphine (heroin). Possession of heroin (smack) is punishable under Section 21 of the Act and the quantity recovered from the three appellants was commercial, therefore, they were rightly convicted under Section 21 of the Act for possession of a manufactured drug - opium derivative in the present case. However, we feel that as the three appellants were first offenders, in view of the law laid down by Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh v. Asstt. Commr. Customs and Central Excise, 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 1092, the sentences of the appellants could be reduced to some extent. 13. Accordingly, the sentences imposed upon Sandeep Singh and Sukhwinder Singh of imprisonment for 15 years are hereby reduced to 10 years each. However, the sentence imposed upon Sarwan Singh of 15 years is hereby reduced to 12 years. 14. Resultantly, the convictions of the appellants are upheld but the sentences are modified to the extent indicated above.