Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1572 (PNJ)

Mandip Singh v. State of Punjab

2009-09-04

HARBANS LAL

body2009
JUDGMENT Mr. Harbans Lal, J. - This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 1729-SB of 2005 filed by Mandip Singh accused and Criminal Appeal No. 2255-SB of 2005 moved by Beeta Kumar accused as these have arisen out of the judgment dated 15.9.2005/ order of sentence dated 16.9.2005 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge Ferozepur, whereby he convicted and sentenced the above-mentioned accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac each under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, the Act) and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. Shortly put, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.4.2003 ASI Sukhmander Singh amongst other police officials happened to be present at Danewala Chowk being on patrol duty while in official gypsy No. PB-05/3087. ASI received secret information that the accuscd Mandip Singh, accused Hira Singh, accused Beeta Kumar alias Bitu and the accused Sukhjindcr Singh Dhillon were indulging in the sale of poppy husk by using Maruti Van No. PB-08AJ-1820 and that the poppy straw was being supplied in the area of Punjab to the aforesaid accused by Ram Sarup Munda resident of Himatpura, Police Station Sadar Abohar as well as Vijay Kumar resident of Sangria, who were salesmen of the contractor of poppy husk belonging to Hindumal Kot and that the accused were further loading the poppy straw in their van. On receipt of this information, the aforesaid ASI alongwith other police officials was proceeding to hold Naka on the bridge of seepage drain in the area of Village Danewala on pucca road leading to Village Bakenwala. The police party came across one Ram Sarup a public man. He was associated with the police party. Thereafter, the police party including aforesaid Ram Sarup laid naka at the aforesaid bridge of seepage drain. On receipt of wireless message, Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal ASP Abohar came there. Around 6:15 A.M., the afore-mentioned Maruti Van was spotted approaching from the side of Village Bakenwala. The ASI gave signal to the van to stop but it did not halt. HC Gian Chand and Constable Bhagwan Chand who were standing on the other corner of the bridge made use of their dangs in order to stop the same. Around 6:15 A.M., the afore-mentioned Maruti Van was spotted approaching from the side of Village Bakenwala. The ASI gave signal to the van to stop but it did not halt. HC Gian Chand and Constable Bhagwan Chand who were standing on the other corner of the bridge made use of their dangs in order to stop the same. Thus, the van was made to stop. Two occupants made themselves scarce. The accused Mandip Singh was driving the van, whereas accused Beeta Kumar alias Bittu was sitting by his side. They were nabbed. They disclosed that the escapers were Sukhjinder Singh Dhillon and Hira Singh. The ASI told the aforesaid accused that the bags lying in the Maruti Van were suspected to contain some contraband and their search was to be carried out. They should tell as to whether they want to have their search from him or a Gazetted Officer. They opted to have the search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. In the meanwhile Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal ASP introduced himself to both the accused by disclosing that he was a Gazetted Officer of the Police Department and posted at Ahohar. He also asked the accused to tell whether they want to have the search of the van either from him or in the presence of a Magistrate. They reposed confidence in him. On search of the van, six bags containing poppy straw were recovered. 100 grams of poppy husk was drawn from each bag to serve as sample and converted into parcels. The remainder of each bag when weighed came to 29 kg 900 rams, which was also turned into parcels These parcels were sealed with seal bearing impressions "SS- as well as "RA". The specimen seal impressions of both the seals were prepared. ASI Sukhmander Singh handed over his own seal after use to HC Sahara Singh. The case property including the sample parcels was seized vide separate recovery memo. The Maruti Van was also taken into possession vide a separate memo. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, where on its basis formal FIR was registered. Both the accused were put under arrest. Gurvinder Singh alias Hira Singh accused was arrested on 7.5.2003. The accused Sukhjinder Singh was got declared a proclaimed offender. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused. 3. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, where on its basis formal FIR was registered. Both the accused were put under arrest. Gurvinder Singh alias Hira Singh accused was arrested on 7.5.2003. The accused Sukhjinder Singh was got declared a proclaimed offender. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused. 3. The accused Mandip Singh, Beeta Kumar alias Bitu and Gurvinder Singh alias Hira were charged under Section 15 of the Act to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. During pendency of the trial, the accused Sukhjinder Singh was also arrested and he was also charge-sheeted separately under Section 15 ibid to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined PW 1 SI Jagroop Singh, PW2 Rakesh Aggarwal SP, PW3 Sarabjit Kaur Junior Assistant, Office of District Transport Officer, Jalandhar PW4 Constable Harbans Singh, PW5 ASI Sukhminder Singh, PW6 HC Sahara Singh and closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them. However, Mandip Singh as well as Beeta Kumar put forth that they had gone to a "Marhi" (tomb), a religious place in District Hanumangarh and on their way back, they were arrested from the bus stand of Abohar and falsely implicated in this case. The accused Gurvindcr Singh came up with the plea that he was not called by the name of Hira Singh. Village Rurka Kalan being a sufficiently large village, there were other persons by the name of Hira Singh and that he has been falsely implicated in this case by substituting him in the place of Hira Singh. The accused Sukhjinder Singh pleaded that his name was Tirath Singh and his fathers name was Santokh Singh. He was never known as Sukhjinder Singh alias Dhillon nor his fathers name was Sokhi Commrade. When the police arrested him, he told his name as Tirath Singh son of Santokh Singh, but the police forcibly made him to sign as Sukhjinder Singh on 2-3 papers and showed him as accused in this case. That he was not travelling in the Maruti Van as alleged and has been falsely implicated in this case. When the police arrested him, he told his name as Tirath Singh son of Santokh Singh, but the police forcibly made him to sign as Sukhjinder Singh on 2-3 papers and showed him as accused in this case. That he was not travelling in the Maruti Van as alleged and has been falsely implicated in this case. In his defence, Gurvinder Singh accused examined DW1 Piara Singh, Head Master Government High School, Rurki, District Jalandhar, DW2 Manjit Singh Dhesai, Inspector Food and Supply Grade-II, DW3 Tarlok Singh Panchayat Secretary, DW4 Mella Singh Ex- Sarpanch of Village Rurka Kalan. His co-accused examined DW5 Constable Harvinder Singh. DW6 Kulwant Kaur, clerk of the office of DTO, Jalandhar. 5. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on the record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused Mandip Singh as well as Beeta Kumar alias Bittu but acquitted the accused Gurvinder Singh and Sukhjinder Singh. Feeling aggrieved with their conviction/sentence, the accused Mandip Singh and Beeta Kumar alias Bitu have preferred the appeals referred to hereinbefore. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants have urged in one voice that it is The specific case of the prosecution that in pursuance of secret information, the naka was set up, but a glance through the prosecution evidence would reveal that such information in adherence to the provisions of Section 42(2) of the Act was neither reduced into writing, nor sent to the superior officers and thus palpably the mandatory provisions of this Section have been given a go- by. This contention is unsustainable for the simple and obvious reason that the recovery has been effected from the Maruti Van while it was on the road, which is needless to say a public place. The provisions of Section 42 ibid were to be switched over, if the recovery had been effected from a place other than a public place. As a matter of fact, this is seizure under Section 43 of the Act and not under Section 42 of the Act. So, it was not obligatory upon the Investigating Officer or other police officials who received the secret information to take down such information in writing. As a matter of fact, this is seizure under Section 43 of the Act and not under Section 42 of the Act. So, it was not obligatory upon the Investigating Officer or other police officials who received the secret information to take down such information in writing. An identical point had been raised in re : Dharminder Kutnar v. State of Punjab 2002(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 278. It was held that if a recovery of contraband has been effected from a conveyance (truck) intercepted at the public place on receipt of a secret information. Section 42 would not apply, but Section 43 of the Act would apply. It was further observed that the word "conveyance" used in Section 42 will mean a conveyance which is not at a public place. In re: Narayanaswamy RavishanlKer v. Assistant Director, 2002(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 470 (SC), the Apex Court held that the seizure of contraband allegedly made from the accused at Airport which is a public place, provisions of Section 43 of the Act are applied and not Section 42 of the Act. In case Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala 2001(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 808, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out due to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 42 in a situation that if the mandate is followed strictly, it would result in delay in trapping the accused and would lead the accused to escape. In the present one, the Investigating Officer had to hold a naka, the moment, he got a secret information that poppy straw was being smuggled. If he had got busy in taking down such information in writing and in sending the same to the superior officers, the accused along with the poppy husk being carried in Maruti Van would have escaped. Thus, from whatever angle, the matter may be viewed, this contention does not hold water and is thus rejected. 8. The next argument having been raised on behalf of the appellants is that Ram Sarup independent witness has been given up by the prosecution on the ground that he has been won over by the accused and as its consequence, the appellants have been denuded of their valuable right to cross-examine him. 8. The next argument having been raised on behalf of the appellants is that Ram Sarup independent witness has been given up by the prosecution on the ground that he has been won over by the accused and as its consequence, the appellants have been denuded of their valuable right to cross-examine him. They further put that instead of handing over the seal after use by the Investigator to this witness, the same was made over to Sahara Singh PW6, an official witness. That being so, the possibility of the contents of the sample parcels being tampered with cannot be ruled out. 9. I have well considered these submission. The independent witness has been given up on the specific pretext of his having been won over by the accused. The possibility cannot at all be ruled out that the witness of the prosecution can later on join hands with the accused and in that eventuality, the prosecution cannot be expected to produce the person as its own witness, who to its own knowledge is not going to support its case. In re: Masalti v. State of UP, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 202, the Apex Court has held that it is undoubtedly, the duty of the prosecution to lay before the Court all material evidence available to it which is necessary for unfolding its case, but it would be unsound to lay down as general rule that every witness must be examined, even though his evidence may not he very material or even, if it is known that he has been won over or terrorised. The same view was reiterated in Bawa Hazi v. State of Kerala AIR 1974 Supreme Court 902 In : Roop Singh v. State of Punjab 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 146, a Division Bench of this Court has held as under :- "A Panch witness may turn hostile and not support the case of the prosecution or may be hesitant in appearing in the Court and depose against an accused for various reasons from fear to bribe. He is an average and ordinary human being and quite exposed and vulnerable to the human feelings of yielding, brow-beating, threats, inducements, etc. To figure as a Panch- witness at the stage of police investigation, is one thing. and thereafter to give evidence before the Court is entirely a different thing. He is an average and ordinary human being and quite exposed and vulnerable to the human feelings of yielding, brow-beating, threats, inducements, etc. To figure as a Panch- witness at the stage of police investigation, is one thing. and thereafter to give evidence before the Court is entirely a different thing. In fact, a Panch witness generally think twice before entering into a witness box and if at all he enters the same, one would not be surprised if he does not support the prosecution because of variety of the reasons mentioned above. Therefore, the fact that the prosecution has given up the independent public person Nirbhai Singh having been won over by the accused persons, is fully justified in the present day situation prevailing in the Society and no adverse inference against the prosecution can be drawn in this case." 10. To my mind, the mere non-production of a witness on the ground that he was won over cannot be a ground for attacking the correctness of the prosecution case. Accordingly, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the testimony of the official witnesses should be discarded on the simple score that the same was not corroborated from any independent source is repelled. 11. In re: Piara Singh v. The State of Punjab 1982 C.L.R. (2) 447, the full Bench of this Court ruled as under :- "that in the ultima ratio criminal trials ordinarily turn and must continue to do so on the credibility and acceptability of the evidence on record. It is not possible to hold that a criminal trial would succeed or fail merely on the technicality of the delivery of an investigating seal to a third person or the latters refusal or inability to appear as a witness about the same. It is more so, is the admitted position that there is no statutory requirement whatsoever to this effect. To conclude, it must be held that there is neither a statutory requirement nor a precedential mandate for handing over the seal used by the police officer in the course of an investigation to a third person forthwith. It necessarily follows therefrom that even where it has been so done, the non- production of such a witness cannot by itself affect the merits of the trial." 12. It necessarily follows therefrom that even where it has been so done, the non- production of such a witness cannot by itself affect the merits of the trial." 12. It thus emerges out that the law does not visualise a plethora of seals with every Investigating officer to be handed over to non-officials after their use and to remain in their custody for an unlimited or unspecified period. There is no specific provision that each Investigating Officer must be officially provided with a large number of individual and personal seals. The purpose behind handing over of the seal of an independent witness is to pre- empt or preclude the tampering of the contents of the sample. Thus, the other limb of arguments, being bereft of any merit is overruled. 13. It has been further contended that the recovery in this case was allegedly effected on 16.4.2003 whereas the sample parcels were received in the Office of Chemical Examiner on 8.5.2003. Thus obviously, there is inexplicable delay of 21 days. The possibility of tampering with the contents during this interregnum cannot be ruled out. 14. This contention is unsustainable. In re: Jaili v. The State of Haryana 2008(21 Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 264, there was a delay of one month in sending sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory. There was no evidence that. samples of the case property were tampered with. The seals on the samples, tallied with the specimen seal as per the forwarding authority letter. Under these circumstances, it was held by this Court that mere delay in sending the samples did not, in any way cause prejudice to the accused, nor did it go to prove that the samples were tampered with, until the same were deposited in the Office of Forensic Science Laboratory. Further in re: Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (4)Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 705, there was a delay of 10 days in sending the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory. It was held by the Division Bench of this Court that mere delay in sending the same to the laboratory is not fatal, where there is evidence that the seized articles were kept in proper and safe custody. It was held by the Division Bench of this Court that mere delay in sending the same to the laboratory is not fatal, where there is evidence that the seized articles were kept in proper and safe custody. Further in re: Ganesh son of Kapil Dev, resident of Haraj, Police Station Sheela Ganj, District Moti Hari (Bihar) v. The State of Haryana, 2009(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 39 there was a delay of 7 days in sending the sample to the Forensic Science laboratory. The delay was not explained. It was held that the prosecution has led cogent and convincing evidence that the sample was not tampered with during the period and thus, the delay was not fatal to the prosecution. Again in Motia Bai v. State of Haryana, 2005(3) Recent Criminal, Reports (Criminal) 56, there was a delay of 20 days in sending the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory. There was no evidence that the sample was tampered with. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory indicated that the seals of the sample were intact, when it reached the laboratory. The conviction was upheld. In re: State of Orissa v. Kanduri Sahoo, 2004(2) Apex Criminal 110 : 2004(1) Supreme Court Cases 337, the sample of cannabis (ganja) was sent for chemical examination after four days of recovery. It was observed by the Apex Court that "The evidence of PW-I was categorical to the effect that the articles were kept in the Excise Malkhana from where they were brought and sent for chemical examination. This relevant aspect appears to have been missed by the High Court. In Valaslas case (supra), it was not laid down that whenever there is delay in sending the samples, the prosecution version would become vulnerable. What was emphasised related to proper and safe custody of the seized articles. In the background to that particular case, when delay of 3 months was there and there was no clear evidence as to with whom the articles were lying, the decision was rendered. No evidence was led to show that the contraband articles were in proper custody and in proper from. But the factual situation is different here. That being so, the High Courts judgment does not stand scrutiny and is set aside. The conviction as done by the trial Court was proper. No evidence was led to show that the contraband articles were in proper custody and in proper from. But the factual situation is different here. That being so, the High Courts judgment does not stand scrutiny and is set aside. The conviction as done by the trial Court was proper. It was also held that merely because the articles were kept in the excise malkhana for four days would not make the prosecution version suspect. 15. Adverting to the present one, SI Jagroop Singh PW1 has solemnly affirmed that "On 23.4.2003, I handed over the sample parcels to Constable Harbans Singh for depositing the same in the Office of Chemical Examiner, Chandigarh alongwith sample seal with seals intact. I directed him to get forwarded the docket from the office of SSP Ferozepur, who as per my direction got forwarded the docket from the office of SSP Ferozepur. On 24.4.2003 the sample parcels could not be deposited being holiday. The said constable on return to the Police Station on 24.4.2003 handed over the same to me. Again on 7.5.2003, 1 handed over all the six sample parcels, sample seal and docket to Constable Harbans Singh for depositing the same in the Office of Chemical Examiner, and after depositing the same with seals intact in the Office of Chemical Examiner, Chandigarh on 8.5.2003 on return to the Police Station handed over the said receipt to me. which I kept in record. During the period, the case property remained in my custody, I did not tamper with it, nor I allowed anybody to tamper with the same." 16. Constable Harbans Singh No. 1263 PW4 stated as under :- "On 23.4.2003, 1 was posted at P.S Khuian Sarwar. On that day. SI Jagrup Singh handed over me six sample parcels containing 100 grams each duly sealed with seal bearing initials SS, JS and RA alongwith sample seal for depositing the same in the office of Chemical Examiner, Chandigarh. I was also directed to get forwarded the docket from the office of SSP Ferozepur and as his direction after doing the needful, I went to the office of Chemical Examiner, Chandigarh on 24.4.2003. Due to holiday, samples could not be deposited. On return to the police station, I handed over sample parcels and sample seal with seals intact to SI Jagrup Singh. Due to holiday, samples could not be deposited. On return to the police station, I handed over sample parcels and sample seal with seals intact to SI Jagrup Singh. Again on 7.5.2003, SI 7.5.2003, Sl Jagrup Singh handed over to me all the sample parcels, sample seal and docket for depositing in the office of Chemical Examiner Chandigarh. On 8.5 2003, I deposited the same in the officc of Chemical Examiner, Chandigarh with seals intact. On return to the police station, I handed over the receipt for the same to SI Jagrup Singh which he kept in record. During the period, sample parcels and sample seal remained in my custody, I did not tamper with it, nor I allowed anybody to tamper with the same. My statement was recorded." 17. The Chemical Examiner has mentioned with specifically in the report Ex. P5 that exhibits marked here 100-P-May 03 to 105-p-May 03 were received on 8.5.2003 with the particulars overleaf. The seals of the exhibits were intact on arrival and agreed with the specimen seals sent. This entire evidence go a long way in proving that right from the stage of seizure till the receipt of the sample parcels in the Chemical Examiners office. the same remained intact and were not tampered with by anyone. Besides this, these kept in proper and safe custody. In this way, the possibility of tampering with the contents of the sample parcels stands ruled out. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants had been emphatic in the Court of arguments that PW2 Rakesh Aggarwal, SP Mohali has deposed in his cross- examination that "When the bags were recovered, their mouths were not stitched but tightened with ropes." That this being the state of the case property, there could he every possibility of its contents being tampered with. This contention is unacceptable for the reason that during arguments, learned counsel for the appellants could not draw attention towards any piece of evidence revealing that the contents of the case property were tampered with at any stage. Furthermore, as just noticed, the contents of the sample parcels too remained intact. This contention is unacceptable for the reason that during arguments, learned counsel for the appellants could not draw attention towards any piece of evidence revealing that the contents of the case property were tampered with at any stage. Furthermore, as just noticed, the contents of the sample parcels too remained intact. SI Jagroop Singh PW1 has stated in categoric terms that "I have seen the case property, i.e., six bags containing poppy husk MO-1 to MO-6 and Maruti Van above said lying parked it the Court MO-7." A careful delving into the evidence of this witness would reveal that any material could not be brought forth to the effect that the case property was tampered with. Thus, this contention is also repelled. 19. It has been further argued that Ram Sarup Munda and Vijay Kumar suppliers were not joined in the investigation as revealed by the record. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission. The prosecution case cannot be thrown overboard merely because of non-joining of the aforesaid persons for the reason that in fact the recovery has been effected from the Maruti Van which was being driven by Mandip Singh - appellant. while Beeta Kumar - appellant was sitting beside him. 20. It has been further sought to be argued on behalf of the appellants that Avtar Singh owner of the van has neither been joined in the investigation, nor challaned under Section 25 of the Act though as per the evidence tendered by Sarabiit Kaur PW3, the Maruti Van bearing registration No. PB-08 AJ-1820 stands registered his name. I have well considered this submission. True that Avtar Singh, the registered owner of the vehicle has not been challaned. In re: Ram Pal v. State of Punjab, 2003(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 159, it has been held that the onus is on the prosecution to establish that the registered owner of the vehicle had knowingly permitted the vehicle to be used. Herein this case, there is not even an iota of evidence on the record to show that Avtar Singh had knowingly given this vehicle to Mandip Singh and others for transporting poppy husk. Such evidence having not surfaced in the investigation as well, Avtar Singh could not be challaned. Thus, this contention is jettisoned. 21. It has been argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the conscious possession of the appellants. Such evidence having not surfaced in the investigation as well, Avtar Singh could not be challaned. Thus, this contention is jettisoned. 21. It has been argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the conscious possession of the appellants. This contention merits rejection. In re : Megh Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) Apex Criminal 482, the accused was sitting on gunny bags containing contraband. It was held by the Supreme Court that "Word conscious means awareness about a particular fact. It is a statement of mind which is deliberate or intended. Expressions "possession" is a polymorphus term which assumes different colours in different contexts. It is impossible to work out a completely logical and precise definition of "possession" uniformally applicable to all situations in the context of all statutes. Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles. This position was highlighted in Madan Lal and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2004(1) Apex Criminal 426 : 2003(6) SCALE 483." In the present one, the appellant Mandip Singh was found driving the vehicle carrying poppy husk bags, which were as many as six in number. Such a mind boggling quantity of poppy husk by no stretch of speculation could be foisted by the Investigator who is an officer of the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. He could not afford to arrange these bags containing poppy husk worth Lacs from any source for the purpose of planting it. To crown it all, the record is quite barren to show, if the Investigating Officer was inimically disposed towards the appellants on any score. There being no previous enmity, animus or ill-will, he could not be expected to frame the appellant. The possession of poppy husk bags of the appellants has been abundantly established. Thus, in view of Megh Singh (supra) as well as Madan Lal and anothers case supra, the presumption arises that these appellants wire in conscious. There being no previous enmity, animus or ill-will, he could not be expected to frame the appellant. The possession of poppy husk bags of the appellants has been abundantly established. Thus, in view of Megh Singh (supra) as well as Madan Lal and anothers case supra, the presumption arises that these appellants wire in conscious. possession of these poppy husk bags and the presumption arising under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act operate in favour of the prosecution. 22. Last of all, it has been argued on behalf of the appellants that it appears in the testimony of Constable Harvinder Singh DW5 that "As per entry No. 1417 in register No. 19 pertaining to the case property of present case, there is no entry regarding re-deposit of the sample and sample of seal in this register from 23.4.2003 to 8.5.2003." That this evidence leaves no scope for doubt that the link in the chain of evidence is missing. 1 am unable to persuade myself to agree with this submission. In his cross-examination, this witness has deposed that "It is correct that as per entry No. 1417 i.e. Ex. D5 there is a reference of deposit of sample in office of Chemical Examiner on 8.5.2003." The evidence of SI Jagroop Singh PW1 reproduced in verbatim in earlier part of the judgment reveals that on 24.4.2003, the sample parcels could not he deposited being holiday and the same were returned to him till 7.5.2003 and handed over the same on 7.5.2003. He has stated in categoric terms that "during the period, the case property remained in my custody, I did not tamper with it nor I allowed anybody to tamper with the same." 23. Section 55 of the Act reads as under :- "55. Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered. He has stated in categoric terms that "during the period, the case property remained in my custody, I did not tamper with it nor I allowed anybody to tamper with the same." 23. Section 55 of the Act reads as under :- "55. Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered. - An officer-in-charge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station and which may be delivered to him, and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the police station." 24. In view of the above provisions of law, SI Jagroop Singh being the SHO kept the sample parcels in his custody before the same were handed over again to Harbans Singh Constable for being carried to the Office of Chemical Examiner. It is because of this reason that entry in register No. 19 could not be made. In as much as the sample parcels during the afore-referred period remained in the custody of the aforesaid SHO, so, question of making entry thereof in register No. 19 does not arise. Thus, this contention being bereft any merit is repelled. 25. No other material point has been urged or agitated by either counsel. 26. As a sequel of the above discussion, both the appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.