JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) : - Convict Suraj Bhan has filed the instant criminal appeal thereby impugning his conviction and sentence ordered by learned Special Judge, Sonepat, vide judgment dated 01.05.2003 and order dated 03.05.2003 thereby convicting appellant Suraj Bhan under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short – the Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. According to the prosecution version, on 23.07.2001, accused Suraj Bhan was apprehended by police party headed by ASI Ram Niwas. PW Hukam Singh was also joined. The accused was informed of his right to be searched before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The accused desired to be searched before Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, the accused was produced before Kuldeep Singh – Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). Thereupon, the accused was searched and charas weighing 60 grams wrapped in polythene paper was recovered from inner right-hand side pocket of his shirt, out of which 5 grams charas was separated as sample. Separate parcels of sample and remaining charas were prepared and sealed. Ruqa was sent to Police Station. Thereupon, FIR was registered and investigated. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused, case property and witnesses were produced before SI Balwant Singh – Station House Officer (SHO), who, after verifying the facts, affixed his own seal on both the parcels. The sample, on analysis in Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Madhuban, was found to be of charas. Accordingly, on completion of investigation, police presented report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for prosecution of the accused Suraj Bhan under Section 20 of the Act. 3. Charge under Section 20 (b) of the Act was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. 5. Constable Ajmer Singh (PW-1) stated that he delivered special report of the case to Illaqa Magistrate without any delay. 6. ASI Ram Niwas (PW-2), DSP Kuldeep Singh (PW-6) and HC Ram Tirath (PW-9) broadly stated according to the prosecution version about recovery of 60 grams charas from the accused. ASI Ram Niwas also stated about investigation of the case conducted by him. 7. 6. ASI Ram Niwas (PW-2), DSP Kuldeep Singh (PW-6) and HC Ram Tirath (PW-9) broadly stated according to the prosecution version about recovery of 60 grams charas from the accused. ASI Ram Niwas also stated about investigation of the case conducted by him. 7. SI Balwant Singh (PW-3) stated that the accused, case property and witnesses were produced before him in this case. He verified the investigation and affixed his own seal on both the sealed parcels. He also stated about part investigation of the case conducted by him. 8. Constable Jagbir Singh – Draftsman (PW-4) stated that he prepared scaled site plan of the place of recovery in this case. 9. Constable Krishan Lal (PW-5) stated that he deposited the case property with FSL without any tampering by anybody. 10. HC Om Parkash (PW-7) stated that the case property remained untampered in his custody. 11. Hukam Singh (PW-8) turned hostile. He stated that nothing was recovered from the accused in his presence. He was cross-examined by Public Prosecutor, but he denied the prosecution version regarding recovery of 60 grams charas from the accused. 12. The accused, in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. No evidence was led by the accused in his defence. 13. Learned Special Judge, Sonepat, vide impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused, as already noticed herein before. Feeling aggrieved, the convict has filed the instant Criminal Appeal. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their assistance. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Hukam Singh – the only non-official witness has not supported the prosecution version. It was also contended that Hukam Singh was wrongly sought to be passed as independent witness, but in fact, he was langri (cook) in the concerned Police Station, and was therefore, under the influence of the police. Delay in sending the sample parcel to FSL was also advanced as contention to assail the impugned conviction. It was also submitted that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses. 16. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that all prosecution witnesses except Hukam Singh (PW-8) have fully supported the prosecution case, and therefore, prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. 17. It was also submitted that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses. 16. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that all prosecution witnesses except Hukam Singh (PW-8) have fully supported the prosecution case, and therefore, prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. 17. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 18. It cannot be said that Hukam Singh was under the influence of police because Hukam Singh in fact turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Had he been under the influence of police, he would have supported the prosecution case in the witness-box. The very fact that he turned hostile would depict that police had no influence on him. Merely because Hukam Singh did not support the prosecution case, the entire remaining evidence of the prosecution cannot be discarded. The accused has not alleged any reason for his false implication. Statements of ASI Ram Niwas (PW-2), DSP Kuldeep Singh (PW-6) and HC Ram Tirath (PW-9) cannot be discarded merely because of their official status. They had no enmity with the accused so as to implicate him in false case or to depose falsely against him. They had no motive or malice against the accused. Consequently, their statements are as much credible as those of non-official witnesses. DSP Kuldeep Singh is Gazetted Officer. He would not have deposed falsely against the accused without any rhyme or reason. Even ASI Ram Niwas (PW-2) and HC Ram Tirath (PW-9) had no reason to depose falsely against the accused. Statements of these three material witnesses are further corroborated by testimony of SI Balwant Singh. The prosecution evidence is thus sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 19. Mere delay in sending the sample parcel to FSL also cannot be said to be fatal to prosecution case. Prosecution has led complete link evidence to demonstrate that the sample parcel was not tampered with till the same reached FSL. Report of FSL also depicts that seal on the sample parcel was intact and tallied with specimen seal impression when the sample parcel was received in FSL. It is thus amply proved that there was no tampering with the contents of the sample parcel. Consequently, mere delay in sending the sample parcel to FSL is completely inconsequential and is insufficient to discard the prosecution case. It is thus amply proved that there was no tampering with the contents of the sample parcel. Consequently, mere delay in sending the sample parcel to FSL is completely inconsequential and is insufficient to discard the prosecution case. In this view, I am supported by judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardip Singh vs. State of Punjab reported as [2008(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 3506 : 2008(4) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2693 (SC)] : (2008) 8 SCC 557. In that case, there was delay of 40 days in sending sample parcel to Laboratory, but the said delay was held to be not fatal to the prosecution case. 20. As regards alleged contradictions or discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses, the same do not go to the root of the case. Some minor variations or contradictions are bound to occur even in the statements of truthful witnesses on account of different powers of perception, observation and memory. The witnesses could not be expected to make parrot like identical statements or to give photographic or videographic version. No material contradiction could be pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Some contradictions are also bound to occur with passage of time. It may be mentioned in this regard that DSP Kuldeep Singh (PW-6) was examined on 12.09.2002 i.e. more than a year and a month after the recovery, whereas HC Ram Tirath (PW-9) was examined on 20.03.2003 i.e. one year and eight months after the recovery. 21. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the prosecution evidence is sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction of the appellant is well founded. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction is upheld. 22. As regards sentence, quantity of charas recovered from the accused-appellant being 60 grams only, falls in the category of ‘small quantity’. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 (in short – the Amending Act) came into force w.e.f. 02.10.2001. According to Section 41 of the Amending Act, all pending cases are required to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act, as amended by the Amending Act and lesser punishment, as provided by the Amending Act, has to be imposed. According to Section 41 of the Amending Act, all pending cases are required to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act, as amended by the Amending Act and lesser punishment, as provided by the Amending Act, has to be imposed. The Amending Act is applicable to cases which were pending trial i.e. the cases pending in the trial Courts at the time of commencement of the Amending Act, although the said provisions are not applicable to appeals which were pending at the time of commencement of the Amending Act. In the instant case, judgment of the trial Judge is dated 01.05.2003. It is thus apparent that the instant case was pending when the Amending Act came into force, although recovery of charas from the accused had been effected before the commencement of the Amending Act. Consequently, in view of Section 41 of the Amending Act, provisions of the Act, as amended by the Amending Act, were applicable to the instant case in the matter of quantum of sentence. Section 20 (b) of the Act, as amended by the Amending Act, provides that in the case of small quantity of charas, offender shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term, which may extend to six months or with fine, which may extend to Rs.10,000/- or with both. Thus, the maximum sentence of imprisonment to which the convict-appellant, in the instant case, could be sentenced was for six months only, with or without fine up to Rs.10,000/- only. The impugned order of sentence passed by learned Special Judge, sentencing the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- is thus patently illegal and against the statutory provisions, as applicable to the case. According to Custody Certificate of the appellant, filed today in Court by learned State counsel, the appellant has already remained in custody for nine months and five days i.e. more than the maximum sentence of imprisonment for six months prescribed for the offence. 23. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order of sentence is modified and the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months only (without any fine), which he has already undergone. Accordingly, bail bonds furnished by the appellant stand discharged. 24. With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. --------------