JUDGMENT 1. Appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 706-DB of 2004 filed by Makhan Singh son of Hari Narain resident of Maur Kalan, District Bathinda and Darshan Singh son of Hari Chand son of Nathu Ram resident of Raipur, District Bathinda and Criminal Appeal No.786-DB of 2004 filed by Amritpal Singh @ Bhamba son of Om Parkash resident of Maur Mandi, Tehsil and District Bathinda. 2. The appellants have impugned the judgment of conviction and sentence order both dated 13 .8.2004 passed by Shri Raj Shekhar Attri, the then Judge, Special Court, Bathinda in case FIR No.8 dated 1.2.2003 under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be briefly referred to as the Act) Police Station Maur, District Bathinda. They were convicted under Section 15 of the Act for keeping in their possession 12 bags, each containing 40 kg poppy husk and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay fine of Rs.2 lacs and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. 3. It is prayed in the appeals that the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence order are illegal and are liable to be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charge under Section 15 of the Act by way of acceptance of these appeals. 4. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 1.2.2003, PW2 Gurdarshan Singh Sub Inspector/Station House Officer Police Station Maur along with other police officials was present at Nakabandhi, which was set up on the bridge of the minor canal in the area of village Ram Nagar. They were checking suspected persons. At about 3.30 p.m. a jeep bearing registration No.PB-03J-9004 came from the side of Maur on which the word “Press” was written on the wind screen in red letters. PW Mithu Singh Chowkidar of Ram Nagar was also in the police party. Signal was given to the jeep to stop. The jeep stopped and three persons were found sitting on the front seat of the jeep. Makhan Singh - appellant was found at the steering wheel. He was driving the jeep. Darshan Singh and Amritpal Singh were found sitting by his side. Gunny bags were loaded in the jeep. The police officials suspected that intoxicating substance was contained in those bags. They wanted to search them. Makhan Singh - appellant was found at the steering wheel. He was driving the jeep. Darshan Singh and Amritpal Singh were found sitting by his side. Gunny bags were loaded in the jeep. The police officials suspected that intoxicating substance was contained in those bags. They wanted to search them. Therefore, Gurdarshan Singh Sub Inspector gave option to Makhan Singh, Amritpal Singh and Darshan Singh - appellants turn by turn that they had the right to get the gunny bags searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a gazetted officer. They all opted that gunny bags may be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer. Their consent memos Ex.PE, PF and PG, respectively were reduced into writing. These were attested by Baljeet Singh Sub Inspector and Mithu Singh Chawkidar. Wireless message was then flashed to Jagmohan Singh Deputy Superintendent of Police(R), Bathinda requiring him to reach the place of occurrence in the area of village Ram Nagar. He reached there after some time. He was apprised of the facts of the case. Jagmohan Singh Deputy Superintendent of Police disclosed his identity to the appellants. He also gave option to them to get the bags searched in the presence of a Magistrate or before some other gazetted officer. The appellants reposed confidence in Jagmohan Singh Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was a gazetted officer and opted to get the bags searched in his presence. The consent memos of the appellants were reduced into writing which are Ex.P A, PB and PC. These were attested by Baljeet Singh Sub Inspector, Mithu Singh Chowkidar and Gurdarshan Singh Sub Inspector. Jagmohan Singh Deputy Superintendent of Police had also signed the consent memos. These were signed and thumb marked by the appellants. Then under the directions of Jagmohan Singh Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gurdarshan Singh Sub Inspector searched the jeep. 12 gunny bags were founded loaded in it. These were taken out. The bags were opened and poppy husk was found in them. 250 grams poppy husk was taken out from each of the bag. The remaining poppy husk was weighed and each bag was found to contain 39 kilograms 750 grams poppy husk. The sample parcels were sealed. The poppy husk contained in the gunny bags was separately sealed in the shape of parcels. Gurdarshan Singh used seal bearing impression of letters ‘GS’. Sample seal EX.Pl was separately prepared. The remaining poppy husk was weighed and each bag was found to contain 39 kilograms 750 grams poppy husk. The sample parcels were sealed. The poppy husk contained in the gunny bags was separately sealed in the shape of parcels. Gurdarshan Singh used seal bearing impression of letters ‘GS’. Sample seal EX.Pl was separately prepared. Seal after use was given to PW Mithu Singh Chowkidar. The sample parcels and gunny bags Exhibits P2 to P13, the jeep and its registration certificate were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PD, which was attested by Jagmohan Singh Deputy Superintendent of Police, Baljeet Singh Sub Inspector and Mithu Singh Chowkidar. Ruqa Ex.PH was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which this case was registered. Ex.PHl/l is copy of the FIR, which had been scribed by Harcharan Singh MHC. Site plan EX.PJ was prepared showing A the place of recovery. Personal search of Makhan Singh - appellant was conducted. Rs.50/- were recovered from him. Ex.PK is the memo of his personal search. Rs.50/- were recovered on personal search of Darshan Singh - appellant and his personal search memo is Ex.PL. Rs.lOO/- were recovered from personal search of Amritpal Singh - appellant and the memo of personal search is Ex.PM. Arrest memos of the appellants were prepared, which are Ex.PN, 5PO and PQ. Information memos regarding their arrest. Ex.PR, PS andPT were also prepared. On reaching the Police Station, the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. Then on 2.2.2002, the case property was produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate vide application Ex.PU. Vide order Ex.PU/I, the Magistrate ordered that it be kept in the Judicial Malkhana. The In-charge, Judicial Malkhana made report Ex.PU/2 that there was no space in the Judicial Malkhana for keeping the case property. An application Ex.PV was then submitted before the Ilaqa Magistrate on 4.2.2003, who passed order Ex.PV/1 that the case property be kept in the Police Malkhana. Sample parcels along with sample seal and Form No.29 were sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner on 3.2.2003. Head Constable Gurpal Singh had deposited them in the office of the Chemical Examiner and he had brought receipt. The Chemical Examiner vide his report Ex.P4 declared that all the sample parcels contained poppy husk. On completion of the investigation, challan was put in the court against the appellants. 5. Head Constable Gurpal Singh had deposited them in the office of the Chemical Examiner and he had brought receipt. The Chemical Examiner vide his report Ex.P4 declared that all the sample parcels contained poppy husk. On completion of the investigation, challan was put in the court against the appellants. 5. Charge was framed against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act. They did not plead guilty to the charge and had claimed trial. 6. The prosecution examined four witnesses, namely, PW1 Jagmohan Singh Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW2 Gurdarshan Singh Sub Inspector, PW3 Harjit Singh, Clerk, DTO Office and PW 4 Gurpal Singh Head Constable. They proved several documents, which are on the file. 7. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Amritpal Singh - appellant stated that he is innocent. His right leg is effected with polio and he walks with limp. He is running shop of radio and television sets at Maur Mandi and he has three taxis which were plied on hire. He had engaged drivers for these taxis. Jeep No.PB-03J-9004 was engaged with Hindustan Times, Chandigarh at the rate of Rs.2700/- per month. It used to start from Maur Mandi at 4 p.m. and used to reach at Chandigarh at about midnight. After collecting the newspapers for distribution to various agents, it used to return during night time. The driver used to keep the jeep in his possession till the departure in the evening as usual. Earlier Kuldeep Singh was driver on the jeep. He worked upto 30.1.2003. Thereafter, Makhan Singh - appellant was engaged as driver on this jeep on 31.1.2003. Amritpal Singh appellant further stated that on 1.2.2003 at about 3/4 p.m. Makhan Singh took the jeep and was driving the same for going to the office of Hindustan Times, Chandigarh via Rampura and Bamala. On the way, the jeep was intercepted by Gurdarshan Singh Station House Officer. He took it to the Police Station alongwith Makhan Singh driver. The jeep was not given for ‘Begar’ to Gurdarshan Singh Station House Officer and, therefore, he was annoyed. Gurdarshan Singh Station House Officer brought him from his house in the presence of his wife Raksha Rani, Kulwant Singh President Municipal Committee Maur Mandi, Vijay Kumar Municipal Councilor, Sandeep Kumar, Bhagwan Dass and Darshan Singh etc. The jeep was not given for ‘Begar’ to Gurdarshan Singh Station House Officer and, therefore, he was annoyed. Gurdarshan Singh Station House Officer brought him from his house in the presence of his wife Raksha Rani, Kulwant Singh President Municipal Committee Maur Mandi, Vijay Kumar Municipal Councilor, Sandeep Kumar, Bhagwan Dass and Darshan Singh etc. at about 6 p.m. and involved him in this false case. His wife Raksha Rani moved applications against Gurdarshan Singh Station House Officer for falsely implicating him in this case. Enquiry was conducted by Bachan Singh Randhawa, Superintendent of Police (Crimes) and he found him (Amritpal Singh - appellant) innocent. The appellant further stated that the gunny bags were full with rice husk, which was insect infested. 8. Makhan Singh - appellant also stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he was employed as driver by Amritpal Singh - appellant on this jeep. The Station House Officer of Police Station Maur was annoyed with Amritpal Singh appellant as well as with him as they were not sending the jeep to the police free of cost. This jeep was engaged with Hindustan Times Newspapers, Chandigarh for collecting the newspapers for onward distribution to the agents of the newspapers at Bhawanigarh, Sunam, Sangrur, Bamala, Rampura and Bathinda. The jeep used to go from Maur at 3/4 p.m. and used to return from Chandigarh at midnight. He further stated that on 1.2.2003 at about 3/4 p.m. he was going to Chandigarh to the office of Hindustan Times newspaper for collecting newspapers as usual. When he came out of Maur Mandi, his jeep was stopped by Gurdarshan Singh Inspector. It was checked. Nothing incriminating was found in the jeep. He was not having driving license at that time. The jeep was taken to the Police Station Maur. He protested that the owner of the jeep may be summoned. Gurdarshan Singh Inspector gave him slaps. Amritpal Singh appellant was also brought to the Police Station and this case was foisted. 9. Darshan Singh - appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Ctiminal Procedure stated that he is innocent. He is married at village Alisher. On 1.2.2003, he came from his in-laws house under the influence of liquor. The time was about 4 p.m. Gurdarshan Singh Station House Officer and Makhan Singh - appellant were passing by his side. He is married at village Alisher. On 1.2.2003, he came from his in-laws house under the influence of liquor. The time was about 4 p.m. Gurdarshan Singh Station House Officer and Makhan Singh - appellant were passing by his side. He signalled them to stop the jeep for giving him lift. Gurdarshan Singh Station House Officer gave slaps to him saying that he was under the influence of liquor. He was put in the same jeep and when he protested, he was taken to the Police Station and was implicated in this false case. 10. The appellants examined DWI Constable Balwinder Singh, DW2 Vijay Kumar, DW3 Bachan Singh Randhawa Superintendent of Police (Crimes), DW4 Kulwant Singh, DW5 Baldev Singh and DW6 Eash Kumar. 11. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants and of the Senior Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent - State of Punjab were heard and the evidence was scrutinised with their help. 12. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants first of all argued that ‘conscious possession’ of the appellants is not proved in this case. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it was not put to them that they were in ‘conscious possession’ of the contraband poppy husk. All the incriminating evidence was put to the appellants and they were given opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against them. It was put to them that they were found travelling in the private jeep No.PB 03J-9004. Makhan Singh - appellant was driving it while Amritpal Singh and Darshan Singh - appellants were found sitting by his side on the front seat of the jeep. It was also put to them that when the jeep was searched 12 gunny bags were found loaded in it. These contained poppy husk. 250 grams poppy husk was taken out as sample from each of the bag. The sample parcels were sealed. The remaining poppy husk was weighed. Each bag was found to contain 39 Kilograms 750 grams poppy husk. The bulk poppy husk was sealed in the same bags in the shape of parcels. Theappellants were not prejudiced in any manner if the word `conscious’ was not put to them. The sample parcels were sealed. The remaining poppy husk was weighed. Each bag was found to contain 39 Kilograms 750 grams poppy husk. The bulk poppy husk was sealed in the same bags in the shape of parcels. Theappellants were not prejudiced in any manner if the word `conscious’ was not put to them. They were found in possession of contraband poppy husk contained in the gunny bags and it is presumed that they must be knowing as to what was contained in the gunny bags. Makhan Singh appellant was Driver of this private jeep. Amritpal Singh -appellant is owner of this jeep. The plea of Darshan Singh -appellant is not that he was only a passenger in the jeep and he took lift without knowing that gunny bags containing poppy husk were loaded in its body. Had this been the plea, then also the onus was on him to prove that he was not in ‘conscious possession’ of the contraband poppy husk contained in the gunny bags. His plea is that he was returning from his in-laws’ house under the influence of liquor. Gurdarshan Singh, Station House Officer, along with Makhan Singh appellant was passing by his side in the jeep in question. He gave signal that the jeep be stopped so that he may take lift, but Gurdarshan Singh, Station House Officer, gave him slaps that he was under the influence of liquor. He was then put into the jeep and was brought to the Police Station. The case of Madan Lal and another vs. State of HP, (2003) 7 SCC465 is referred here. Five persons were. found in Maruti Esteem Car; one Manjit Singh was driving the Car and the remaining accused persuns were sitting therein. The Car was searched. A black coloured bag was found which contained a steel dolu kept in a plastic bag. The said dolu contained 820 gms charas. Under these circumstances, the Apex court laid down that the appellants were in conscious possession of the contraband charas. The Trial Court had noted down that all the accused persons were travelling in a vehicle, they were known to each other, it was not explained as to how they travelled together from the same destination in a vehicle which was not a public vehicle. The Trial Court had noted down that all the accused persons were travelling in a vehicle, they were known to each other, it was not explained as to how they travelled together from the same destination in a vehicle which was not a public vehicle. Further, it was observed by the Apex Court that once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish as to how he came to be in possession and that it was not within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of such position because of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 of the Act, wherealso, presumption is available to be drawn from illicit articles. So, it was held by the Apex Court that in the factual scenario of the case not only possession, but conscious possession was established. In the case in hand, the prosecution has succeeded in proving this fact that 12 bags of poppy husk were loaded in the private jeep owned by Amritpal Singh - appellant. The appellants have not been able to explain that their possession was not conscious. So, the gravamen of the offence under Section 15 of the Act are well proved. 13. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants further argued that in this case the link evidence is not complete. They referred to the affidavit Exhibit P.X of P.WA Head Constable Gurpal Singh. He had taken the sample parcels to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. It is pointed out that in this affidavit, the verification is defective, inasmuch as that in the said affidavit it is stated that paras Nos.l,2, 3, 4 and 5 are true and correct to the best of his knowledge. It is argued that it is not mentioned in this affidavit as to which paras are true and correct to the information and which paras are true and correct to the knowledge of the deponent. The verification that paras Nos. 1, 2, 3,4 and 5 are true and correct to the best of knowledge of the deponent is not defective. It does not make it inadmissible in evidence. In this affidavit, P.WA Gurpal Singh, Head Constable, has stated that he was given sealed sample parcels on 3.2.2003 by P.W. Gurdarshan Singh, Station House Officer. Sample seal was also given to him. It does not make it inadmissible in evidence. In this affidavit, P.WA Gurpal Singh, Head Constable, has stated that he was given sealed sample parcels on 3.2.2003 by P.W. Gurdarshan Singh, Station House Officer. Sample seal was also given to him. He then got the docket prepared from the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda. Then he deposited the sample parcels in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh on 4.2.2003. He got the receipt from there and gave it to Gurdarshan Singh, Station House Officer, on 5.2.2003. It is clearly mentioned in his affidavit that he did not himself tamper with the sample parcels, nor allowed anybody else to tamper with them till they remained in his custody. His statement was not challenged on this point by cross-examining him that the sample parcels did not remain intact and there was some tampering. So, his statement goes unrebutted on this point. P.W.2 Gurdarshan Singh, Station House Officer, has deposed that after obtaining orders from the Ilaqa Magistrate, he had kept the case property in the Police Malkhana. On 3.2.2003, he sent all the sample parcels and the sample seal vide FormNo.29 to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, through Head Constable Gurpal Singh. Head Constable Gurpal Singh had deposited the same in the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory at Chandigarh and he had brought the receipt, which was given to him. So, from the combined reading of the statement of P. W.2 Gurdarshan Singh, Station House Officer and the statement of P.W4 Head Constable Gurdpal Singh, who submitted his affidavit Exhibit P .X, it is proved that the case property remained intact till it was analysed in Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. 14. The next contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants is that the samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh with delay. There is no substance in this argument. “Recovery was effected on 1.2.2003. The case property was produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate on 2.2.2003. It was ordered to be deposited in the Judicial Malkhana. The in charge of Judicial Malkhana submitted report that there was no space in the Judicial Malkhana for keeping the case property. Another application Exhibit P.V was moved before the Ilaqa Magistrate on which order Exhibit P.V/l was passed that ? the case property be kept in the Police Malkhana. It was then kept in the Police Malkhana. The in charge of Judicial Malkhana submitted report that there was no space in the Judicial Malkhana for keeping the case property. Another application Exhibit P.V was moved before the Ilaqa Magistrate on which order Exhibit P.V/l was passed that ? the case property be kept in the Police Malkhana. It was then kept in the Police Malkhana. Then on 3.2.2003, all the sample parcels were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh along with sample seal vide Form No.29 through Head Constable Gurpal Singh after getting the docket prepared from the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda. Head Constable Gurpal Singh deposited the sample parcels on 4.2.2003 in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. So, sample parcels had been sent on 3.2.2003. There is no delay in the despatch of the sample. 15. It was argued that P.W.2 Gurdarshan Singh, Sub Inspector, was got declared hostile by the Additional Public Prosecutor and he was then cross-examined by him. In fact, P.W.2 Gurdarshan Singh, Sub Inspector, did not suppress anything nor can he be termed as a hostile witness. His deposition reveals that after deposing that he prepared the site plan Exhibit P.J and recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the challan was prepared and nothing else was done by him at the spot, he closed his examination-in- chief. In-fact, he forgot to, disclose further story of the prosecution by mere inadvertence. He was then reminded of the further proceedings conducted by him at the spot andhe fully supported the prosecution version on all the lines which P.W.1 Jagmohan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, supported. The evidence of P.W.1 Jagmohan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police and P.W.2 Gurdarshan Singh Inspector receives credence. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside simply because of their official status. There are no material discrepancies in their statements. The factum of the alleged recovery of 12 bags containing contraband poppy husk is cogently proved from their statements. 16. It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that P.W. Mithu Singh, Chawkidar, has not been examined and this has caused a dent in the prosecution case. P.W. Mithu Singh, Chawkidar, was given up obviously because as won over by the appellants. He was not examined, he was not ready to support the prosecution case. 16. It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that P.W. Mithu Singh, Chawkidar, has not been examined and this has caused a dent in the prosecution case. P.W. Mithu Singh, Chawkidar, was given up obviously because as won over by the appellants. He was not examined, he was not ready to support the prosecution case. If P.W. Mithu Singh, Chawkidar, had supported the prosecution case, then the argument would have been that he was under the influence of the police being Chawkidar and no reliance be placed on his testimony to convict the appellants. The prosecution case is not enfeebled because of non-examination of P.W. Mithu Singh, Chawkidar. 17. Amritpal Singh- appellant examined D.W,2 Vijay Kumar. He deposed that on 1.2.2003, he was present at the Dairy of Darshan Singh in connection with the meeting of the Milk Vendors Union. Dairy of Darshan Singh is at a distance of 30/ 40 feet from the house of Amritpal Singh - appellant. At about 6 P .M, the police party came at the house of Amritpal Singh - appellant. His house was searched. No incriminating article was recovered. Amritpal Singh was taken to Police Station Maur Mandi He was falsely implicated in this case. He is a got up witness. He admitted that he did not move any application to the higher police Authorities complaining therein that Amritpal Singh - appellant was falsely implicated in this case. His interestedness in the appellant is revealed that he also appeared after four months of the registration of this case before D.W. Bachan Singh Randhawa, Superintendent of Police, who had conducted the enquiry. Amritpal . Singh - appellant also examined D.W4 Kulwant Singh. According to him, he was President of the Municipal Committee, Maur Mandi He also deposed that on 1.2.2003, the police raided at the house of Amritpal Singh at about 6 P.M. Vijay Kumar, Municipal Commissioner, was also present. Nothing incriminating was recovered and this case was foisted against Amritpal Singh appellant. His evidence reveals that he is not an immediate neighbour of Amritpal Singh appellant. His house is at a distance of one kilometer from his house. He did not get any resolution passed in Municipal Committee, Mour Mandi regarding false implicity of Amritpal Singh appellant in this case. His evidence reveals that he is not an immediate neighbour of Amritpal Singh appellant. His house is at a distance of one kilometer from his house. He did not get any resolution passed in Municipal Committee, Mour Mandi regarding false implicity of Amritpal Singh appellant in this case. He admitted that he did not accompany the wife of Amritpal Singh appellant for appearing before the higher police officials. He is also a got up witness. Amritpal Singh appellant examined D.W.6 Eash Kumar, a Contractor of Hindustan Ltd. His evidence reveals that the jeep in question owned by Amritpal Singh appellant was employed with Hindustan Times,Newspaper, Mohali / Chandigarh. It used to bring newspapers from the office of Hindustan Times for distribution in the town of Bathinda and its adjoining areas. Amritpal Singh appellant also examined D.W.3 Bachan Singh Randhawa, the then Superintendent of Police (Crime). According to him, Raksha Devi wife of Amritpal Singh appellant had given an application complaining therein that Amritpal Singh was falsely implicated in this case. The said application was marked to him by the then Additional Director General of Police (Crimes). He made enquiry and then he submitted his report. According to him, as per his enquiry report, Amritpal Singh appellant was arrested from his house on 1.2.2003 and this fact was recorded by him in the case Diary No.11. statement of D.W.3 Bachan Singh Randhawa, the then Superintendent of Police (Crimes), cannot be relied upon. He admitted in cross-examination that he had mentioned in his separate enquiry report that Amritpal Singh (appellant), Darshan Singh and Makhan Singh (also appellants), are the real culprits. He also admitted that he had recommended that challan be put against all the appellants. His further cross- examination reveals that he has taken the somersault and has supported the prosecution version. The concluding lines of his statement are as under: “It is incorrect that accused Amritpal was arrested from his house. It is incorrect that the case was suspicious. It is correct that I found the version of I.O and DSP as correct. I myself did not /interrogate accused Amritpal”. So, no implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of D.W.3 Bachan Singh Randhawa, the then Superintendent of Police (Crimes). Amritpal Singh appellant is admittedly the owner of the jeep in which the contraband poppy husk was carried. It is correct that I found the version of I.O and DSP as correct. I myself did not /interrogate accused Amritpal”. So, no implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of D.W.3 Bachan Singh Randhawa, the then Superintendent of Police (Crimes). Amritpal Singh appellant is admittedly the owner of the jeep in which the contraband poppy husk was carried. This fact is also proved by P.W.3 Harjit Singh, Clerk, office of the District Transport Officer, Bathinda. The evidence adduced by Amritpal Singh appellant has failed to prove that he was arrested from his house on 1.2.2003. The prosecution evidence has cogently proved that he was arrested along with his co-appellants when he was travelling in the jeep carrying contraband poppy husk. Makhan Singh appellant has admitted that he was employed by Amritpal Singh appellant as Driver on this jeep. He also admitted that on 1.2.2003 at about 3/4 P.M he was driving this jeep to the office of the Hindustan Times Newspaper at Chandigarh for collecting the newspapers from there. The prosecution story is also that on 1.2.2003 at 3.40 P.M, this jeep was intercepted by the police when contraband poppy husk was recovered from it. The third appellant Darshan Singh admitted that he was travelling in this jeep. His version is that he was under the influence of liquor and was going on the road when he signalled this jeep to stop to give lift to him. Gurdarshan Singh, Station House Officer, was in this jeep while Makhan Singh appellant was driving it. Gurdarshan Singh, Station House Officer, felt annoyed due to his drunken condition and he. took him to the Police Station in this very jeep and also implicated him in this case. The defence evidence has been scrutinised with care and caution. It has utterly failed to substantiate the defence version. 18. Last of all, Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that in case the conviction of the appellants is maintained by this court, then lenient view be taken against them regarding sentence. It has been brought to our notice that Amritpal Singh appellant was a petty shop keeper, now aged about 60 years, while Makhan Singh appellant is a Driver and Darshan Singh appellant is a poor agriculturalist. They have their wives and children to support. It has been brought to our notice that Amritpal Singh appellant was a petty shop keeper, now aged about 60 years, while Makhan Singh appellant is a Driver and Darshan Singh appellant is a poor agriculturalist. They have their wives and children to support. The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay fine of Rs.2 lacs each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. We feel that the sentence which has been awarded to them by the trial Court is on harsh side. Therefore, we interfere in the impugned sentence order and reduce the sentence from 12 years rigorous imprisonment to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and the amount of fine is also reduced from Rs.2 lacs to Rs.1 lac, each, and in default of payment of fine each of them shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The period of detention during investigation, trial and the pendency of this appeal shall be set off against the period of sentence. Except for this modification in the sentence order, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed.