JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J.:-This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 20.04.2000, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Ajit Singh, for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’ only) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of one year. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 29.06.1993, DSP Surjit Singh along with his driver and gunmen in Government Gypsy, whereas, Gurbax Singh, Sub Inspector, along with other police officials, in a separate Government vehicle, were going from the side of Rajomajra towards the fields, through Katcha passage, in connection with detection of suspicious persons, and when at about 4.30 p.m. they reached on the bridge of drain in the area of Rajo Majra, accused ( Ajit Singh ) was seen by them coming from the side of railway lines, on the pavement of the drain, who on seeing the police vehicles, tried to retreat. On suspicion, the vehicles were stopped. DSP Surjit Singh with the help of Gurbax Singh and other police officials, apprehended the accused, who disclosed his name as Ajit Singh son of Gopal Singh, resident of village Bhadalwad, Police Station, Barnala. DSP Surjit Singh conducted search of the cloth bag, being carried by the accused in his right hand as a result whereof recovery of 10 KGs. opium was effected therefrom. He could not produce any permit or licence. After drawing two samples of 10 grams each, the remaining opium, was put into a separate tin box. The samples, and the tin container, were sealed with the seal, bearing impression ‘GS’ and taken into possession, vide memo PA. Seal after use was returned to SHO Gurbax Singh. On further personal search of the accused, currency notes of Rs.55/- were also recovered, which were taken into possession, vide memo Ex.PB. Ruqa Ex.PC was sent to the Police Station, on which formal FIR Ex.PC/1, was recorded. Site plan Ex.PD of the place of recovery, was prepared. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. Ruqa Ex.PC was sent to the Police Station, on which formal FIR Ex.PC/1, was recorded. Site plan Ex.PD of the place of recovery, was prepared. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Section 18 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of his case, examined Gurbax Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-1), Surjit Singh, S.P. (PW-2), the Investigating Officer, H.C. Pritpal Pal Singh (PW3), C. Darbara Singh (PW4) and Sh. A. S. Kathuria, the then Addl. District & Sessions Judge (PW5). The Addl. PP for the State, tendered into evidence report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PG and closed the same. 5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He stated that he was posted as Constable Driver in the Punjab Police. Punjab Singh, Head Constable, is his real brother-in-law. He was posted as Driver with Sh. S.P.S. Parmar SP(D) Barnala. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, wanted to dismiss Mr. S.P.S. Parmar and due to this reason, on the instructions of the SSP, Sangrur, he was arrested on 17.6.1993, and a false case was planted against him. He further stated that on 30.06.1993, during night he was taken to the residence of a Magistrate at Malerkotla. One Lal Din, accused, who was with him was also produced before the Magistrate at Malerkotla, during night and their statements under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure were got recorded by Sub Inspector Gurbax Singh, SHO, Dhuri which were against Mr. S.P.S. Parmar. It was further stated that no opium was recovered from him. Sh. S.P.S. Parmar was dismissed, on the basis of the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., but was reinstated as per the orders of the High Court. It was further stated that opium was also planted against his brother-in-law Punjab Singh, who has since been acquitted. In defence, the accused produced Sh. S.P.S. Parmar (DW-1), Harpal Singh, H.C. (DW-2) and Punjab Singh, C. (DW-3). It was further stated that opium was also planted against his brother-in-law Punjab Singh, who has since been acquitted. In defence, the accused produced Sh. S.P.S. Parmar (DW-1), Harpal Singh, H.C. (DW-2) and Punjab Singh, C. (DW-3). He also tendered into defence evidence, certified copies of judgments Ex.DA and Ex.DB. Thereafter, he closed the defence evidence. 6. After hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the accused/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the accused/appellant, at the very outset, contended that the trial Court, fell into a grave error, in relying upon the unreliable and incredible evidence of the official witnesses to bring home the guilt to the accused. He further submitted that no independent witness was joined at the time of alleged recovery. He further submitted that had the trial Court, scrutinized the evidence of the official witnesses, properly, it would not have fallen into an error, in recording conviction and awarding sentence. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. No doubt, the case of the prosecution, was based on the evidence of the official witnesses only. Surjit Singh, DSP, at the relevant time, when appeared as, PW2, in clear cut terms stated that on 29.06.1993, Ajit Singh, accused, on suspicion, was stopped and on search of a cloth bag, being carried by him, in his right hand, 10 Kgs opium was recovered. The accused could not produce any licence or permit, for keeping in possession, the said opium. He further stated that two samples, each weighing 10 grams, were taken out, from the opium recovered. The statement of Surjit Singh, PW2, was duly corroborated by Gurbax Singh, Sub Inspector (PW1), who was the SHO, Police Station Dhuri, at the relevant time. Nothing could be brought out, during the course of their cross-examination, which may go to discredit their evidence. No enmity against these witnesses, was proved, as would be discussed hereinafter. The statement of Surjit Singh, PW2, was duly corroborated by Gurbax Singh, Sub Inspector (PW1), who was the SHO, Police Station Dhuri, at the relevant time. Nothing could be brought out, during the course of their cross-examination, which may go to discredit their evidence. No enmity against these witnesses, was proved, as would be discussed hereinafter. The link evidence, in this case, was also complete, as is evident from the evidence of Pritpal Singh, HC (PW3) and Darbara Singh, C (PW4). Their evidence clearly established that none tampered with the case property and the samples, until the same(samples) were sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner. It could not be imagined that such a big haul of opium, could be planted against the accused. It was a chance of recovery, and, as such, the question of non-joining of an independent witness, did not cause any dent, in the prosecution story. Even otherwise, it is a matter of common experience, that the independent witnesses hardly come forward, to join search and seizure proceedings. In Appa Bai and another Vs. State of Gujrat 1988 S.C. 696, it was held that the prosecution story cannot be thrown out, on the ground, that an independent witness had not been examined by it. It was further held that civilized people, are generally insensitive, when a crime is committed, even in their presence, and they withdraw from the victim’s side, and from the side of the vigilant. They keep themselves away from the Courts, unless it is inevitable. Moreover, they think the crime like a civil dispute, between two individuals, and do not involve themselves in it. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in this case, has been reappraised and the same has been found to be cogent, convincing, reliable and trust worthy. The trial Court, in my opinion, was right, in relying upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as the same did not suffer from any serious infirmity. The trial Court did not, therefore, commit any error, in placing reliance on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for holding the accused guilty. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 10. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellantaccused, that mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act, were not complied with. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 10. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellantaccused, that mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act, were not complied with. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. In the instant case, the recovery was not effected from the search of the person of the accused, but from the search of the cloth bag, which he was carrying. As such, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act were inapplicable. Had the recovery been effected from the search of the person of the accused, it would have been said that there was some force, in the argument advanced by the Counsel for the accused. In State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, 1999 (6) S.C.C. 172, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, settled beyond doubt, that the language of Section 50, was implicitly clear, that the search had to be, in relation to a person, and not in relation to the premises, vehicles, or articles. Similar view was taken in Smt. Krishna Kanwar Thakuraeen Vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2004(1) S.C. 597. In Surju Dass and others v. State of Gujrat, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 403, wherein charas was found from the bag which was hanging on the scooter which the accused was riding, it was held that this was not a case where the person of the accused was searched and the recovery of contraband was effected from his person and, as such, the provisions of the Act were not applicable. In the instant case, as stated above, the recovery was effected from a cloth bag, being carried by the accused. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellantaccused that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act were not complied with and as such the trial Court, was wrong, in recording conviction and awarding sentence. In my opinion, the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, were also not attracted to the present case. It was a case of chance recovery. In my opinion, the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, were also not attracted to the present case. It was a case of chance recovery. The recovery, in this case, was not effected, on the basis of prior information. The police party was going in connection with the detection of suspicious persons, when per chance, the accused was sighted coming from the side of railway lines and, on search of the cloth bag being carried by him, recovery of 10 Kgs. opium was effected. Since the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, were not applicable, to the facts of the present case, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant, that the link evidence, in the instant case, was incomplete, as there was no evidence, on record, that the CFSL Form was filled up, and the same was deposited, in the Malkhana. The recovery was effected, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Dhuri. Gurbax Singh, Sub Inspector, SHO, was present with Surjit Singh, DSP. Gurbax Singh, appeared in the witness box, as PW1, and stated that the sample and the parcel of the remaining opium, were sealed with the seal, bearing impression “GS” belonging to him. He further stated that the seal after use was handed over to him. The entire case property was deposited with the MHC on reaching the police station, by DSP Surjit Singh. There is affidavit Ex.PE of Pritpal Singh, HC (PW3) , who was posted as MHC in Police Station, Dhuri, at the relevant time. He, in clear-cut terms, stated in his affidavit, that on 29.06.1993 Surjit Singh, DSP, deposited with him, one parcel, Pipa Tin containing 9 KGs 980 grams opium, sealed with the seal, bearing impression “GS” and two sample parcels containing 10 grams opium each, sealed with the seal bearing impression ‘GS’ along with the sample seal, a letter and a sum of Rs.55/- of the personal search of the accused, with seals intact. He further stated that none tampered with the same, till it remained in his custody. He further stated that on 19.07.1993, he handed over the sample parcels, along with the sample seal to Dalbara Singh, Constable, for depositing the same, in the office of the Chemical Examiner. He further stated that none tampered with the same, till it remained in his custody. He further stated that on 19.07.1993, he handed over the sample parcels, along with the sample seal to Dalbara Singh, Constable, for depositing the same, in the office of the Chemical Examiner. Dalbara Singh, Constable, vide affidavit Ex.PF, stated that he was handed over a sample parcel, containing 10 grams opium, duly sealed with the seal, bearing impression ‘GS’, sample seal, and a letter bearing RC No. 136 dated 19.07.1993, for depositing the same, in the office of the Chemical Examiner, Chandigarh. He went to the office of the Chemical Examiner on 20.07.1993, for depositing the aforesaid articles, but an objection was raised, and, therefore, he brought back the sample along with other articles, and handed over the same to Pritpal Singh, MHC. In his affidavit, he further stated that on 26.7.1993 MHC Pritpal Singh again handed over to him the sample, duly sealed with the seal bearing impression GS, letter and the sample seal. He went to the office of the Chemical Examiner but again an objection was raised and he brought back the sample parcel and the other articles and handed over the same to MHC Pritpal Singh. He further stated that on 2.8.1993, Pritpal Singh, MHC again handed over to him the aforesaid sample, duly sealed with the seal bearing impression GS and the sample seal and he went to the office of the Chemical Examiner, on the very next day i.e. 3.8.1993 and he deposited the same. He further stated that none tampered with the sample, till it remained in his custody. There is also the report Ex.PG of the Chemical Examiner, according to which, the seals on the sample, tallied with the sample seal. The mere fact that the seal remained with Gurbax Singh, Sub Inspector, did not mean that he tampered with the samples or the case property, in any manner. It, therefore, could not be said that the link evidence, in the instant case, was incomplete. The Court is required to act, on the basis of evidence and not on conjectures. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. No doubt Mr. A.S. Kathuria, the then Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla, appeared in the witness box as, PW5. The Court is required to act, on the basis of evidence and not on conjectures. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. No doubt Mr. A.S. Kathuria, the then Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla, appeared in the witness box as, PW5. He recorded the confessional statement of the accused on 30.06.1993, at his residence, at about 9.15 P.M. . The said confessional statement of the accused was found to be not voluntary by the trial Court. Even Mr. A.S. Kathuria, while appearing in the witness box as, PW5, stated that the police made a request for police remand of the accused, and also moved an application for recording his confessional statement. It was required of him to remand the accused to judicial custody, and afford him an opportunity, to think, as to whether he wanted to make confessional statement or not. Even the accused was not told by the concerned Magistrate, that he would not be remanded to police custody in case he did not make confessional statement. In Sarwan Singh, Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 Supreme Court, 637, while considering the provisions of Section 164 Cr.P.C., it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:- “ The Act of recording confession under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, is very solemn act and, in discharging his duties under the said section, the Magistrate must take care to see that the requirements of Sub Section (3) of Section 164 are fully satisfied. It would of course be necessary in every case to put the questions prescribed by the High Court circulars but the questions intended to be put under Sub Section (3) of Section 164 should not be allowed to become a matter of a mere mechanical enquiry. No element of casualness should be allowed to creep in and the Magistrate should be fully satisfied that the confessional statement which the accused wants to make is in fact and in substance voluntary. The whole subject of putting questions to an accused person who offers to confess is to obtain an assurance of the fact that the confession is not caused by an inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person as mentioned in Section 24, Evidence Act. The whole subject of putting questions to an accused person who offers to confess is to obtain an assurance of the fact that the confession is not caused by an inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person as mentioned in Section 24, Evidence Act. It would naturally be difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to the time which should be allowed to an accused person in any given case before recording his confession under Section 164. However, speaking generally, it would be reasonable to insist upon giving an accused person at least 24 hours to decide whether or not he should make a confession. Where there may be reason to suspect that the accused has been persuaded or coerced to make a confession, even longer period may have to be given to him before his statement is recorded:” The trial Court, was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion that the said confession being not voluntary, could not be acted upon. On reappraisal of the evidence of Mr. A.S. Kathuria, this Court also arrives at the conclusion that the confession was rightly ignored by the trial Court. 14. The Counsel for the appellant-accused further contended that it was completely a stage managed affair, and no recovery was effected, from the accused. He further contended that since there were strained relations between the SSP Sangrur and S.P.S. Parmar, posted as S.P. Barnala, due to this reason, false case was planted against the accused. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. SPS Parmar, the then SP(D) Barnala, was not associated with the present case, in any manner. He appeared in the witness box as, DW1, and stated that he remained posted as SP(D) Barnala, from 7.1.93 to 19.10.93, and Harpal Singh, Head Constable, was posted as Incharge Security with him, whereas, Punjab Singh was working with him as Driver. He further stated that Ajit Singh, accused, was nearly related to Punjab Singh, his Driver. He further stated that Ajit Singh was used against him, by planting a false case, against him. He further stated that, on the basis of that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of said Ajit Singh, he was dismissed from service. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition, in the High Court and his dismissal was set aside. He further stated that Ajit Singh was used against him, by planting a false case, against him. He further stated that, on the basis of that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of said Ajit Singh, he was dismissed from service. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition, in the High Court and his dismissal was set aside. Ex.DW1/A is the certified copy of the writ petition. He further stated that Ajit Singh, accused was involved in the present case and sent to custody,just to prevent him, from obtaining affidavit, in his favour. When SPS Parmar was not associated, in this case, how could he say that this case was planted against the accused. No judgment of the High Court, was placed, on the record. He admitted, during the course of cross-examination, that his dismissal was set aside, on technical grounds, that no inquiry was conducted, against him, before dismissing him, from service. He also admitted, during the course of crossexamination, that the High Court did not give any finding with regard to the present case, against Ajit Singh, in those proceedings. He also admitted that charge sheet relating to him, was served upon him in the year 1997, and was dropped in the year 1999. He also admitted, during the course of cross-examination, that on the date of recovery, he was not present with the accused. In these circumstances, the recovery of opium from the possession of the accused, in the present case, hardly had got any relevance with the dismissal of SPS Parmar, DW1. Ex.DA, is copy of the judgment dated 4.3.1997, vide which Harpal Singh, against whom, FIR No. 40 dated 9.8.93, Police Station Amargarh, was registered, was acquitted and Ex.DB is copy of the judgment dated 11.4.1995, vide which Punjab Singh, was acquitted in case FIR No. 57 dated 8.8.93, under Section 18 of the Act. The present case was registered against the accused on 29.06.1993. Harpal Singh and Punjab Singh were not apprehended, during the course of the same transaction. They were apprehended, in different cases, and recovery of opium was allegedly effected, from them, on different dates. The recovery of opium, in the instant case, was effected, on a different date. Under these circumstances, the acquittal of Harpal Singh and Punjab Singh, vide judgments, copies whereof are Ex.DA and Ex.DB, did not entitle the accused, in the present case, to acquittal in any manner. The recovery of opium, in the instant case, was effected, on a different date. Under these circumstances, the acquittal of Harpal Singh and Punjab Singh, vide judgments, copies whereof are Ex.DA and Ex.DB, did not entitle the accused, in the present case, to acquittal in any manner. The trial Court was, thus, right in holding that the defence evidence did not go to prove that the accused was falsely implicated, in the present case. The trial Court was also right, in holding that from the cogent, convincing and reliable evidence, produced, in this case, by the prosecution, the guilt of the accused stood proved. The trial Court was also right in dis-believing the defence evidence. The submission of the Counsel for the accused-appellant that it was a stage managed affair, just with a view to involve the accused, in a false case, to extract confession against SPS Parmar, does not appear to be correct. There is nothing, on record, that the accused was posted with SPS Parmar, at any stage, in any capacity. The mere fact that Ajit Singh is the brother-in-law of Punjab Singh, who was driver with S.P. S. Parmar, SP, at Barnala, did not mean that he was falsely involved, in the present case. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant accused, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 15. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not warrant any interference, and are liable to be upheld. 16. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 20.04.2000, are upheld. The bail bonds of the appellant-accused are cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, shall take all necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of law, to comply with the order with due promptitude. ————————