JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.(Oral) - Convict Prem Singh has filed this criminal appeal assailing his conviction and sentence ordered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and order dated 19.12.1998 thereby convicting the appellant 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 of payment thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. Prosecution case is that on 14.5.1997, on receipt of secret information, Police Party headed by SI Jagir Singh laid Naka. Amrik Singh PW was also joined. Appellant Prem Singh and his brother Pritpal Singh came from the side of village Dadu Majra. They tried to go back on seeing the police but were apprehended by the police. On suspicion that the appellant was having charas in his possession, he was informed of his right to be searched in presence of a gazetted officer or Magistrate. He opted to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer of Police. Accordingly, Surjit Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police was called to the spot. The bag hanging on the left shoulder of the appellant was searched. It was found to contain charas wrapped in a glazed paper. On weighing, it was found to be 1 Kg. Out of the recovered charas, sample weighing 10 grams was separated. Separate parcels of sample and the remaining charas were prepared and sealed. FIR was got registered by sending ruqa to the police station. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On reaching the police station, the accusedappellant was produced before Inspector/SHO Mani Ram along with case property and witnesses. Inspector Mani Ram verified the investigation and affixed his own seal on the case property. Scaled site plan of the place of occurrence was also got prepared. The sample on analysis was found to be of charas. Accordingly, on completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) was presented for trial of the accused under Section 20 of the Act. 3. Charge under Section 20 of the Act was framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses. 3. Charge under Section 20 of the Act was framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses. DSP Surjit Singh (PW-2), Amrik Singh (PW-3) an independent witness, and SI Jagir Singh (PW-4) have broadly stated according to prosecution version about recovery of 1 kilogram charas from the accused-appellant. SI Jagir Singh (PW-4) also stated about investigation of the case conducted by him. Draftsman was examined to prove the scaled site plan. Inspector Mani Ram stated that the accused was produced before him and after verification of facts, he affixed his own seal on the parcels. He also recorded statements of some formal witnesses. A.K. Srivastava, Junior Scientific Officer (PW-10) was examined to prove the report of analysis of the sample. Some other formal witnesses were also examined. 5. 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. He alleged that he is a rickshaw puller. He used to be called to police station many times for manual work. However, this time he was called to the police station and was falsely implicated in the case. 6. In defence, accused-appellant examined two witnesses. Mohan Singh (DW-1), father of the accused, and Jai Kumar (DW-2) neighbour of the accused broadly stated about defence version of the accused. 7. Learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accusedappellant vide judgment and order dated 19.12.1998 as noticed hereinbefore. Feeling aggrieved, the convict has filed the instant appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file including file of trial Court with their assistance. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Amrik Singh, was a stock witness of the police. It was also argued that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. It was also canvassed that sample was sent belatedly for chemical examination. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and the guilt of the accused is fully proved. 11. I have carefully considered the matter. There is no material on record to depict that Amrik Singh is a stock witness of the police. On the contrary, it has come in evidence that FIR stood registered even against Amrik Singh. 11. I have carefully considered the matter. There is no material on record to depict that Amrik Singh is a stock witness of the police. On the contrary, it has come in evidence that FIR stood registered even against Amrik Singh. Consequently, he had no reason to support falsely the prosecution case and to depose against the accused. There are no serious contradictions or discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Some contradictions are, however, bound to occur even in the statements of most truthful witnesses, particularly with passage of time. The witnesses cannot be expected to make parrot like identical statements. On the contrary, some contradictions in the statements of the witnesses are natural. Statements without contradictions may be liable to be doubted or discarded being tutored ones. 12. As regards the delay in sending sample to the Laboratory for analysis, the seal remained with the independent witness Amrik Singh till after the sample reached the Laboratory for analysis. According to the report of analysis, the seals on the sample were intact. Prosecution has also led complete link evidence in this regard. Consequently, mere delay in sending the sample to the Laboratory for analysis cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution. 13. All the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution version. There is no reason why the accused was implicated in a false case. Even the accused-appellant has not alleged any such ground. On the contrary, father of the accused deposed that accused-appellant was being called time and again to police station for manual work, as alleged by the accused also. If it was so, the police would have been sympathetic to him and would not have impleaded him in a false case. The naka was laid by the Police Party, headed by SI Jagir Singh. However, search of the accused was conducted in presence of a gazetted officer DSP Surjit Singh (PW-2) who has also supported the prosecution version. There is no ground to discard the statements of these witnesses. Their statements are further corroborated by the independent witness Amrik Singh. He had no reason to depose falsely against the accused. He had no axe to grind by falsely deposing against the accused-appellant. The prosecution evidence is thus credible. Veracity of the prosecution witnesses could not be impeached in their lengthy cross-examination. 14. Their statements are further corroborated by the independent witness Amrik Singh. He had no reason to depose falsely against the accused. He had no axe to grind by falsely deposing against the accused-appellant. The prosecution evidence is thus credible. Veracity of the prosecution witnesses could not be impeached in their lengthy cross-examination. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, as well as for other reasons recorded by the trial court, I find that prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant, being well founded, is upheld. 15. As regards quantum of sentence, according to the custody certificate, the appellant has already completed the sentence of imprisonment for ten years (including the remission period of two years ten months 18 days). In addition to it, the appellant also remained in custody for 11 months and 21 days for undergoing sentence in default of payment of fine. The case is 16 years old. During this long period, the appellant has undergone ordeal of the trial and appeal. He has already undergone substantive sentence of imprisonment for ten years and he has completed almost half of the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The appellant is a poor person. He is present in person. Keeping in view the all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that ends of justice would be served if sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant in default of payment of fine is reduced to the period already undergone by him on that count. It is ordered accordingly. With this modification in sentence, the aforesaid appeal stands disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------