JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against the judgement of the learned Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Mandi dated 29.06.2006 whereby he convicted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced each of the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that on 28.02.2005 a police party headed by PW-11 ASI Mohan Lal and comprising of HC Gopal Singh, HC Dheeraj Singh, HHC Mani Ram, PW-10 Constable Anoop Kumar was on patrol duty. They laid a Nakka at Katlog where they associated two independent witnesses, PW-8 Prem Kumar and PW-1 Khem Singh. At about 9.30 a.m one Tata Spacio vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01-M-3803 came from Janjehali side. A signal was given for the vehicle to stop. The vehicle was being driven by accused Sidhu Ram one of the accused. Six persons were sitting in the vehicle. Ram Chand, his wife and two children were sitting in the front bench of the vehicle alongwith the driver. Accused Ram Singh and another lady were sitting in the rear seat of the vehicle. Ram Singh had kept a bag on his lap. PW-11 ASI Mohan Lal asked the driver to give the documents of the vehicle. The driver looked towards Ram Singh and then Ram Singh kept the bag on the seat, alighted from the vehicle and started running towards Mandi side. However, accused Ram Singh was immediately apprehended by PW-11 and other police officials. The accused were interrogated and disclosed their names and addresses. The vehicle belonged to Ram Singh though it was registered in the name of his wife Shamkali. 3. Ram Chand and his wife informed PW-11 that they are running a general merchandise shop at Jogindernagar and had hired the vehicle to go to Mandi to purchase articles for their shop. When they reached Mandi accused persons told them that they were having some personal work at Janjehali and then the vehicle was taken towards Janjehali side. 3. Ram Chand and his wife informed PW-11 that they are running a general merchandise shop at Jogindernagar and had hired the vehicle to go to Mandi to purchase articles for their shop. When they reached Mandi accused persons told them that they were having some personal work at Janjehali and then the vehicle was taken towards Janjehali side. According to PW-11 one day prior to the occurrence the vehicle was driven to village Chiuni where Ram Chand and his wife Kamla and children stayed in the vehicle whereas Sidhu Ram and Ram Singh accused went away from the vehicle and returned at about 4.00 a.m with a bag. This was the same bag which was recovered from the vehicle. 4. On checking the bag it was found to contain two polythene bags containing charas, which was in the form of sticks. Scales from the adjoining shop of Khem Singh were arranged. On weighment the entire charas was found to weigh 6 Kg. and 800 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn from each of the polythene bag for the purpose of analysis. These two samples and the remaining charas were packed in separate parcels and sealed with seal bearing impression ‘S’. 5. Other codal formalities were done at the spot and the seal impression after use was handed over to witness Prem Kumar. NCB form Ext.PW-11/A was filled up at the spot itself. Rukka Ext.PW-7/B was also prepared and sent to the police station Gohar through PW-10 constable Anoop Kumar on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext.PW-7/A was registered. The case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW-1-/A and Ext.PW-1/B and the accused persons were arrested. Thereafter the case property and the accused were handed over to PW-7 SHO Mast Ram who resealed the case property with his own seal bearing impression ‘M’. PW-7 after resealing the case property and putting the sample seal impression on the NCB form sent special report of the case to the Superintendent of Police, Mandi. He deposited the case property in the Malkhana with PW-4 HC Bheem Singh who entered the case property in the Malkhana register. According to this witness, PW-7 also deposited with him seizure memo, NCB form, seal of sample, etc. On 2.3.2005 PW-4 handed over one sample of charas mark A-1, alongwith copy of FIR, NCB form, sample seal impression, etc. He deposited the case property in the Malkhana with PW-4 HC Bheem Singh who entered the case property in the Malkhana register. According to this witness, PW-7 also deposited with him seizure memo, NCB form, seal of sample, etc. On 2.3.2005 PW-4 handed over one sample of charas mark A-1, alongwith copy of FIR, NCB form, sample seal impression, etc. vide RC No. 153/2005 to PW-5 HHC Lalit Kumar to take the same to the CTL Kandaghat. PW-5 HHC Lalit Kumar deposited the sample with the CTL Kandaghat and the chemical examiner vide report Ext.PX opined that the exhibit contains the contents of charas. On this basis the accused were charged with having committed the offence aforesaid. After trial they have been convicted as aforesaid and both the accused have filed the appeals. 6. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that one of the grounds taken in the appeal was that the report of the Chemical Examiner was not sufficient to hold that the sample was of charas in view of the judgement of this Court rendered in Sunil vs. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 207. Thereafter, the State filed applications to send the entire bulk charas and this Court vide its order dated 8.5.2012 allowed the applications and directed that the second sample as well as the bulk charas be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga for chemical analysis. Report has been received and the relevant portion of the report in respect of both the parcels is as follows:- “Results of the Examination Various scientific tests such as physical identification, chemical and chromatographic analyses were carried out in the laboratory with the exhibits in cloth parcels marked as Ex.P-1 and A-2 under reference. The above tests performed indicated the presence of cannabinoids including the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol in both the exhibits. The microscopic examination indicated the presence of Cystolithic hairs in both the exhibits. Charas is a resinous mass, which on testing was found present in both the exhibits. The quantity of resin as found in the exhibits in cloth parcel marked as Ex.P1 & A-2 is 28.85% & 29.83% w/w respectively. The result thus obtained is given below. The exhibits in cloth parcels marked as Ex.P1 & A2 are extracts of cannabis and samples of CHARAS.” 7. As far as the appeal filed by Sh. Sidhu Ram is concerned, Sh. The result thus obtained is given below. The exhibits in cloth parcels marked as Ex.P1 & A2 are extracts of cannabis and samples of CHARAS.” 7. As far as the appeal filed by Sh. Sidhu Ram is concerned, Sh. D.S.Dalee, Advocate, appearing for the said appellant submits that there is no evidence worth the name against the said accused since he was only the driver of the vehicle and according to him his conviction has been ordered only on the basis of conjectures and presumptions and is liable to be set-aside. Sh. G.R.Palsra, Advocate, appearing for Ram Singh urges that there are a lot of discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. The weights of the sample in the bulk do not tally and therefore it cannot be said that the sample or the bulk charas is the same which was seized. He has challenged the judgement of the learned lower Court on various other grounds which we shall deal with hereinafter. 8. PW-11 has fully supported the prosecution case as set-out above. He was cross-examined at length. The main cross-examination is with regard to the fact as to how Prem Kumar and Khem Singh the private witnesses were associated. According to this witness he had told these witnesses that they had set a Nakka and would call the witnesses as and when required. The witnesses then went to their khokhas (temporary sheds) and slept. A suggestion put to all the witnesses is that despite the accused persons showing documents of the vehicle the police party demanded Rs.1,000/- and when the accused persons refused to give this amount then they were falsely implicated in this case. 9. The version of PW-11 is fully supported by constable Anoop Kumar PW-10, whose version is virtually identical. He also states that when the documents were demanded from Sidhu Ram, the driver he looked towards accused Ram Singh, who was sitting in the rear seat and thereafter Ram Singh put the bag, which was on his lap, on his seat and started running towards Mandi side. It is not disputed that the vehicle is registered in the name of wife of Ram Singh. As far as Kamla Devi is concerned no case is being made out against her. The independent witnesses are PW-8 Prem Kumar and PW-9 Ram Chand. They both turned hostile. It is not disputed that the vehicle is registered in the name of wife of Ram Singh. As far as Kamla Devi is concerned no case is being made out against her. The independent witnesses are PW-8 Prem Kumar and PW-9 Ram Chand. They both turned hostile. PW-8 stated that he is Panchayat Chowkidar and also runs a shop. At about 10.00 a.m. 4-5 police officials came to his shop in a vehicle. A vehicle came, which was intercepted by the police for checking and according to him he neither saw the accused persons nor anything was recovered in his presence. He admits his signatures on seizure memo Ext.PW-1/A though according to him this document was prepared later on. He also admits his signatures on Ext.PW-1/C, which is the cloth containing the sample seal impression and on the other documents Ext.PW-1/B search and seizure memo, Ext.PW-1/D arrest memo and Ext.PW-1/F search memo. He also states that he did not read these documents and has signed them only on the asking of the police. 10. Similar is the statement of PW-1 Khem Singh. This witness admits that the police had checked a vehicle in which 3-4 ladies, 2-3 men and 2-3 children were sitting. The vehicle had come from Janjehali side. According to him the police officials gave beatings to the occupants of the vehicle and nothing was recovered in his presence. In examination-in-chief he stated that he did not know the driver or owner of the vehicle or the number of the vehicle. In cross-examination he, however, admitted that the number of the vehicle was HP-01-M-3803. He further admitted that accused Sidhu Ram was the driver of the vehicle and accused Ram Singh was the person who started running from the vehicle. Thus though this witness first denied that he had not made any statement to the police that Sidhu Ram and Ram Singh were in the vehicle but when cross-examined at length he admitted that Sidhu Ram was the driver and Ram Singh was the person who had started running from the vehicle. He admits that his shop is adjoining to the place of occurrence. According to him he had appended his signatures on blank documents then stated that they were in printed forms. He admits that his shop is adjoining to the place of occurrence. According to him he had appended his signatures on blank documents then stated that they were in printed forms. This part of his statement is totally incorrect since none of the documents which contain his signatures are in printed form but all of them are totally hand written. He could not give any reason as to why he had put his signatures on blank papers. 11. The other witness is Ram Chand PW-9 who was travelling in the vehicle. According to him he and his wife Kamla Devi and children had hired the vehicle from Jogindernagar to Shikari Devi. He admits that the vehicle was being driven by Sidhu Ram and Ram Singh was also travelling in the vehicle. He also admits that Ram Singh was sitting on the seat behind the driver. He admits that during the night the accused went away to Janjehali and returned next morning with a bag to the vehicle. He also admits that when they were travelling in the vehicle the same was intercepted by a police party at Katlog. He, however, denied that Ram Singh ran out of the vehicle or was caught by the police. He also denied that any charas was recovered from the bag. 12. The learned trial Court held, and in our opinion rightly so, that the statements of the official witnesses could not be discarded especially when the statements of PW-10 and PW-11 were totally consistent with each other. There are no contradictions between the same. No doubt the independent witnesses turned hostile but all the witnesses admitted the fact that the vehicle was intercepted by the police. PW-9 Ram Chand clearly states that they were returning from Janjehali. It also stands proved that the vehicle is registered in the name of wife of accused Ram Singh. No doubt all the independent witnesses have stated that no charas was recovered in their presence and denied the fact that accused Ram Singh tried to run away from the vehicle. However, as pointed out above, PW-1 Khem Singh in cross-examination admitted that the number of the vehicle was HP-01-M-3803 and also admitted that accused Sidhu Ram was driving the vehicle and accused Ram Singh was the person who had started running. However, as pointed out above, PW-1 Khem Singh in cross-examination admitted that the number of the vehicle was HP-01-M-3803 and also admitted that accused Sidhu Ram was driving the vehicle and accused Ram Singh was the person who had started running. This also indicates that these witnesses have turned hostile for extraneous reasons and are not telling the truth in Court. There is no explanation by these witnesses as to why they signed the documents. These witnesses are not illiterate persons. PW-8 is the Panchayat Chowkidar and PW-1 sells vegetables in his village. PW-9 is a shop keeper and is a person rich enough to afford to hire a vehicle. PW-1 and PW-8 have not given any explanation for signing the various documents. There may be some minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and one of the contradictions pointed out by Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate is that according to PW-4 MHC Bheem Singh he had hand over these samples to PW-5 on 2.3.2005 at 6 a.m and that on return RC was handed over to him on 4.3.2005 at about 3.00 p.m. Whereas PW-5 states that he handed over the road certificate to MHC on the night of 2.3.2005 after returning from Kandaghat. This is a very minor contradiction. Other than this no serious contradiction has been pointed out in the statements of the witnesses. 13. The defence set out by the accused and which defence has been supported by the independent witnesses is that the police party demanded Rs.1,000/- from the accused persons and when the accused persons refused to give this amount they were falsely implicated in this case. This defence is patently preposterous. Even if the Police Officers were angry, why would they plant charas worth lacs of rupees to settle scores. More than 6.500 kg. of charas was recovered and it cannot be believed that the police officials would plant the same. The law is well settled that even if the independent witnesses turn hostile the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be discarded on this short ground. Official witnesses are as good witnesses as any other witness. The only caveat is that in case independent witnesses do not support the prosecution case then the testimony of the official witnesses should be scrutinized with greater care and caution and if there are inconsistencies in their statements then they may not be believed. Official witnesses are as good witnesses as any other witness. The only caveat is that in case independent witnesses do not support the prosecution case then the testimony of the official witnesses should be scrutinized with greater care and caution and if there are inconsistencies in their statements then they may not be believed. However, if the statements are consistent and after going through the statements the Court is of the view that they are cogent and reliable there is no reason why the testimony of the official witnesses should not be taken into consideration. 14. In the present case the entire facts as discussed above lend credence to the prosecution version. The defence version on the face of it is false. All the requirements have been met in the case. Therefore, the prosecution version that the charas was recovered in a bag kept in the rear seat of the vehicle from which the accused Ram Singh ran away is proved. The fact that Ram Singh ran away also indicates that he was the owner of the charas. This fact also finds support from the fact that the vehicle was owned by Ram Singh though registered in the name of his wife. 15. Shri G.R.Palsra, learned counsel for accused Ram Singh has pointed out that there is some discrepancy in the weight of the bulk sample and submits that the bulk sample should have been 6 kg. 750 gms., whereas as per the laboratory it is only 6 kg. 474 gms. Similarly according to him the sample charas should have been only 25 grams but it is 29 grams. In our view this is a very small difference. When the weight was taken by the police officials borrowed ordinary scales for weighing the stuff, the scales may or may not be very accurate. On the other hand, the laboratory has used scientific scales which are more accurate and this small discrepancy in weight can arise in such a case. 16. However, as far as Sidhu Ram is concerned though there may be suspicion against him but it cannot be said with certainty that he knew what things were being carried in the bag by Ram Singh. There is virtually no material on record to show that Sidhu Ram was aware about the contents of the bag. 16. However, as far as Sidhu Ram is concerned though there may be suspicion against him but it cannot be said with certainty that he knew what things were being carried in the bag by Ram Singh. There is virtually no material on record to show that Sidhu Ram was aware about the contents of the bag. True it is that one of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is that when the documents were asked from Sidhu Ram he looked towards Ram Singh. We find nothing suspicious about this behaviour because when the police official asked for the documents he could look to his employer and owner of the vehicle for confirmation as to whether the documents are to be handed over or not. 17. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the case against Ram Singh accused is fully proved but the same cannot be said against Sidhu Ram. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2006 filed by Sidhu Ram is allowed and he is acquitted and in case he had deposited the fine the same shall be refunded to him. Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2006 filed by Ram Singh is dismissed. His conviction is upheld and his bail bonds are cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court to undergo the sentence imposed upon him by 30th September, 2012 failing which the learned trial Court shall take necessary steps to ensure that the judgement is implemented and accused Ram Singh undergos the sentence imposed upon him. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the judgement to the learned trial Court forthwith.