JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 31.05.1997, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge(II), Jind, vide which it convicted the accused (now appellant), for the offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to be as the ‘Act’ only) and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment, for a period of two years. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 25.6.1996, a police party headed by Lachhman Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Station, Safidon, was present on the turning of the road known as ‘Bhuslana turn’ in the area of village Didwara in connection with patrol duty. A secret information was received by Lachmman Singh, ASI, to the effect that the accused was indulging in the sale of poppy husk, in his house, situated in village Didwara and if raid was conducted immediately, he could be arrested with huge quantity of the contraband. On receipt of information, Lachhman Singh, ASI along with other members of the police party, went to the house of the accused and found him (accused) sitting on a cot, in front of the house. Wireless message was sent to Paramjit Singh Ahlawat, the then DSP, Safidon, as a result whereof, he came to the spot. The search of the house of the accused was conducted, in accordance with the provisions of law, as a result whereof, 10 bags each containing 41 kgs. 900 grams poppy-husk was recovered. Sample of 200 grams, from each bag, was taken out. The samples and the remaining poppy husk were converted into separate parcels, and taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PC. Seal after use was handed over to Dhanpat Singh, Head Constable. The accused was arrested. The site plan was prepared. After completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Section 15 of the Act, was framed against the accused, by the Additional Sessions Judge(II), Jind, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 4. After completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Section 15 of the Act, was framed against the accused, by the Additional Sessions Judge(II), Jind, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Lachhman Singh, ASI, (PW-1), Dhanpat Singh, Head Constable, (PW-2), Paramjit Singh Ahlawat, the then DSP, Safidon, (PW-3), Ram Chander, Head Constable, (PW-4), Parkash Chander, Constable (PW-5 ) and Mohinder Pal, Photographer, (PW-6). Thereafter, the Addl. P.P for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. The Additional Sessions Judge(II), Jind, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge(II), Jind, the instant appeal was filed by the accused/appellant. 8. I have heard Sh. Amit K. Singh, Counsel for the appellant, Sh. S.S. Mor, Senior DAG, Haryana, for the respondent, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, vehemently, contended that no independent witness was joined by the Investigating Officer, at the time of the alleged search of the accused. He further contended that the case of the prosecution, being solely based on the evidence of the official witnesses, could not be said to have been fully proved. It is, no doubt, true that no independent witness was joined by the Investigating Officer, at the time of search of the house of the accused. It may be stated here, that a secret information was received by the Investigating Officer, that the accused was in possession of huge quantity of poppy husk, in his house, and if the raid was conducted immediately, then a big haul of contraband, could be recovered. In these circumstances, the Investigating Officer, did not want to take any chance, as had he made an effort to join an independent witnesses, then delay would have been caused, resulting into slipping away of the accused, defeating the very purpose of the raid. In these circumstances, the Investigating Officer, did not want to take any chance, as had he made an effort to join an independent witnesses, then delay would have been caused, resulting into slipping away of the accused, defeating the very purpose of the raid. It was, under these circumstances, that no independent witness could be joined. On account of this reason, the evidence of the official witnesses, cannot be distrusted and disbelieved. From the cogent, convincing and trust-worthy evidence of Lachhman Singh, ASI (PW-1), Dhanpat Singh, Head Constable ( PW-2 ) a recovery witness, and Paramjit Singh Ahlawat, the then DSP, Safidon (PW-3), it was proved beyond doubt, that on search of the house of the accused, in accordance with law, 10 bags containing poppy husk, were recovered. Nothing could be brought out, during the course of the cross-examination of these witnesses, which may go to discredit their evidence. The witnesses had no ill­will, grudge or enmity against the accused, to falsely implicate him, in the present case. Even otherwise, it cannot be imagined that such a big haul of poppy husk, could be planted against the accused by the police party. In Appa Bai and another Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 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. In State of NCT of Delhi versus Sunil (2000) ISCC 748, it was held as under:­- “It is an archaic notion that actions of the Police Officers should be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the Police. At any rate, the Court can not start with the presumption that the Police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law, the presumption should be the other way round. The official acts of the Police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the Legislature “. At any rate, the Court can not start with the presumption that the Police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law, the presumption should be the other way round. The official acts of the Police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the Legislature “. 9-A. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. On account of non-joining of an independent witness, the case of the prosecution, did not become doubtful. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 10. It was next submitted by Counsel for the appellant, that a secret information was received, by the Investigating Officer, but he neither reduced the same into writing, nor sent the same to the officer superior immediately. He further contended that, as such, there was breach of the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act, which must result vitiation of the investigation, as also the subsequent proceedings, and, as such, the accused was entitled to acquittal. It is, no doubt, true that, ASI Lachhman Singh, PW1, the Investigating Officer, stated that he received a secret information against the accused that he (accused) was in possession of a big haul of poppy husk, in his house, and if raid was conducted immediately, he could be arrested and recovery of contraband, in huge quantity could be effected from him. In these circumstances, Lachhman Singh, ASI, did not want to waste even a single minute, in recording/reducing into writing, the secret information, and sending the same to the officer superior. Had he done so, it would have certainly taken some-time, resulting into leaking of the information, and slipping away of the accused, thereby defeating the very purpose of raid. In such circumstances, it is to be determined, as to whether, non-compliance of the provisions of Section 42, resulted into vitiation of investigation and further proceedings or not. In Sajjan Abraham v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 692, a decision rendered by a Bench of three Judges of the Apex Court, PW3 Head Constable got, information at about 7 p.m. that the appellant was selling injectable narcotic drugs, at a particular place. In Sajjan Abraham v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 692, a decision rendered by a Bench of three Judges of the Apex Court, PW3 Head Constable got, information at about 7 p.m. that the appellant was selling injectable narcotic drugs, at a particular place. When he proceeded to the Police Station to give this information, to his immediate superior, SI of Police, PW5, he found PW5 along with his police party, which was on patrol duty coming. Hence, the said information was communicated there by PW3 to PW5. Thereafter, PW5, along with his police party and PW3 immediately proceeded towards the place, where the appellant was standing and apprehended him. It was contended that, PW5, the officer concerned, had not recorded the information given by PW3, with respect to the accused-appellant’s involvement, before proceeding to arrest him, and that he after receiving the said information had not communicated it, to his immediate superior which constituted violation of Section 42. The said contention of the Counsel for the appellant, was rejected, by the Apex Court, by holding that PW5, could not have recorded the information given by PW3, and communicate the same, to his superior, while he was on motion, on patrol duty, in a jeep, before proceeding to apprehend the accused. Had they not acted immediately, the appellant would have escaped. It was held that on these facts, no inference could be drawn, that there had been any violation of Section 42 of the Act. The Apex Court further held as under:­ “In construing any facts to find, whether the prosecution has complied with the mandate of any provision which is mandatory, one has to examine it with a pragmatic approach. The law under the aforesaid Act being stringent to the persons involved in the field of illicit drug traffic and drug abuse, the legislature time and again has made some of its provisions obligatory for the prosecution to comply with, which the courts have interpreted it to be mandatory. This is in order to balance the stringency for an accused by casting an obligation on the prosecution for its strict compliance. The stringency is because of the type of crime involved under it, so that no such person escapes from the clutches of the law. The court however while construing such provisions strictly should not interpret them so literally so as to render their compliance, impossible. The stringency is because of the type of crime involved under it, so that no such person escapes from the clutches of the law. The court however while construing such provisions strictly should not interpret them so literally so as to render their compliance, impossible. However, before an drawing such inference, it should be examined with caution and circumspection. In other words, if in a case, the following of a mandate strictly, results in delay in trapping an accused, which may lead the accused to escape, then the prosecution case should not be thrown out.” 10-A. The facts of the aforesaid authority are almost similar to the facts of the present case. In the present case, Lachhman Singh, ASI, along with other police officials was in motion, on patrol duty, on the relevant day, in the area of village Didbara, when he received a secret information with regard to the involvement of the accused, in selling poppy husk at his residence. Had he consumed time, in recording the information, and sending the same to the officer superior, certainly the possibility of the leakage of information, and escape of the accused thereby, defeating the very purpose of raid, could not be ruled out. In these circumstances, if the secret information was neither recorded by the Investigating Officer, nor sent to the officer superior immediately, that did not amount to violation of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act. It may be stated here, that Paramjit Singh Ahlawat, the then DSP, Safidon was informed by Lachmman Singh, ASI, through wireless message, with regard to the secret information, received by him, regarding the involvement of the accused, in the commission of offence, as a result whereof, he came to the spot. Later on, information was sent to the officer superior through ruqa and special reports. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authority, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, non-strict compliance with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, did not at all affect the investigation, as also the subsequent proceedings. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. In these circumstances, non-strict compliance with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, did not at all affect the investigation, as also the subsequent proceedings. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that there was delay of 24 days, in sending the sample, to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, which remained unexplained. He further contended that the possibility of tampering with the case property, in these circumstances, could not be ruled out. Now let see, as to whether, from the record, it was proved that there was a possibility of tampering with the case pr6perty and the sample or not. Lachhman Singh, ASI, PW1, during the course of examination-in-chief, stated that when he reached the Police Station, the SHO was not present there. Therefore, he could not produce the case property, samples, and the accused etc. before him. He further stated that he sent information Ex.PP, to the then DSP Paramjit Singh Ahlawat, as required under Section 57 of the Act, and intimated him, about the arrest of the accused and recovery of poppy husk. He further stated that on 25.6.1996, he prepared the docket and handed over the same to the DSP for sending the samples, to the Director, FSL, Madhuban. He further stated that the, MHC sent the sample, in due course of time, through constable Parkash Chander, and on receipt of report Ex.PH from the Assistant Chemical Examiner, FSL Madhuban, the accused was challaned. Ram Chander, Head Constable (PW-4) tendered his affidavit Ex.PJ. It is evident from the affidavit that the samples duly sealed with the seals, were deposited with him on 25.6.1996 by Lachhman Singh, ASI. He further stated that on 19.07.1996, he sent the samples of this case, duly sealed, along with the sample seals through Parkash Chander, Constable, who deposited the same in the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Parkash Chander, Constable, handed over the receipt after deposit of the samples. He further stated that none tampered with the samples, till the same remained in his custody. Parkash Chander, Constable, handed over the receipt after deposit of the samples. He further stated that none tampered with the samples, till the same remained in his custody. Parkash Chander, Head Constable, vide affidavit Ex.PK, also stated that on 19.07.1996 he was handed over the samples duly, sealed along, with the sample impression of the seals for depositing in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal and he deposited the same, with the said laboratory, on the same day, and handed over the receipt to MHC Krishan Chander. He further stated that none tampered with the samples, till the same remained in his custody. Above all, there is report Ex.PH of Forensic Science Laboratory, to the effect, that the seals on the samples, were intact, when the same were deposited on 19.07.1996. It is further evident from report Ex.PH of the Forensic Science Laboratory, that the seals on the samples tallied with the sample seals. From the evidence referred to above, it was proved that none tampered with the samples, till the same remained in the custody of the police officials, and deposited in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory. Under these circumstances, the submission of the learned 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 provisions of Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not complied with, as the alleged recovery, in this case, was effected from the house of the accused. No doubt, according to Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before effecting the house search, the concerned Officer was required to call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched was situate or of any other locality, if no such inhabitant of the said locality, was available or was willing to be a witness, to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them so to do. As stated above, the secret information was received in this case, when the police party was in motion, on patrol duty. The informant informed him that if the raid was conducted immediately, huge quantity of contraband, could be recovered. As stated above, the secret information was received in this case, when the police party was in motion, on patrol duty. The informant informed him that if the raid was conducted immediately, huge quantity of contraband, could be recovered. It was, under these circumstances, that ASI Lachhman Singh, PW1, along with other police officials immediately went to the house of the accused, so as to ensure that he did not escape. Lachhman Singh, ASI (PW-1) during the course of cross-examination stated that 7/8 persons had reached the place of recovery, but none could be joined, in the investigation, because none was ready to join. He further stated that he gave a note, to this effect, in the case diary. It means that Lachhman Singh, ASI, made an attempt to join two respectable persons of the locality, who were present there, but they did not come forward to join the investigation. It was, under these circumstances, that he was not successful in his attempt to do so. In Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab, (1997) 3 Crimes 55 (P&H), it was held that public witnesses may not be joined, but an attempt must be made to join the public witnesses. There can be cases when public witnesses are reluctant to join or are not available. All the same, the prosecution must show a genuine attempt, having been made to join public witnesses. In the instant case, a genuine attempt was made to join two respectable persons, but on account of the aforesaid reasons, they could not be joined. Under these circumstances, there was substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this view of the matter, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 14. 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. The same are liable to be upheld. 15. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 31.05.1997, are upheld. If the appellant is not bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The same do not warrant any interference. The same are liable to be upheld. 15. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 31.05.1997, are upheld. If the appellant is not bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps, in accordance with the provisions of law, to comply with the judgment, with due promptitude. --------------------