JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar, J. 1. This appeal by the appellant is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.11.2018 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘trial Court’), in File No. 06/Spl.Challan titled "State versus Paramjeet Singh". 2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we deem it appropriate to first take note of the prosecution case as was set out before the trial Court. 3. On 06.02.2010, Head Constable Tilak Raj along with Sgct. Jagdev Singh, SPO Bodh Raj and SPO Rohit Salaria were on patrolling duty near Kishanpur and were checking the vehicles at Tawi Pul, Kishanpur. At about 3 pm, a Truck bearing Registration No. 5683/PB09E came from Udhampur which was being driven by its driver accompanied by an unknown person who was also sitting beside him. The Truck was signaled to stop by the police personnel aforesaid and the driver was asked to show the documents of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle did stop the Truck on the spot, but on being asked about the documents of the vehicle, ran away from the spot along with Truck. The patrolling party boarded a private car and gave a chase to the Truck. They found the Truck parked on the road side at Meneh Morh without there being any person present in the said Truck. The patrolling party checked the Truck thoroughly and found a special cabin made in the bottom of the Truck. In the said cabin, 100 packets of poppy straw weighing two kg each were found. 4. On this, In-charge Head Constable vide Rapat No. 11 Roznamcha dated 06.02.2010 entered a report in the concerned register and sent a docket to the Police Station concerned for lodging of FIR. Upon registration of the FIR, the investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Satpal which was later on conducted by Manzoor Ahmed Kohli S.I. and Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma, S.I. 5. As is the case put up by the prosecution before the trial Court, during the course of investigation, site plan of place of recovery of the contraband was prepared, the SDPO and the concerned Magistrate were also called on the spot and in their presence, 100 packets of poppy straw were seized and put in 04 big bags. As is the case put up by the prosecution before the trial Court, during the course of investigation, site plan of place of recovery of the contraband was prepared, the SDPO and the concerned Magistrate were also called on the spot and in their presence, 100 packets of poppy straw were seized and put in 04 big bags. 250 gms contraband from one packet out of each of the 04 bags was taken out and sealed as samples. The rest of the contraband put in 04 bags was also seized. The seal was kept on a spurdnama of a civilian witness, namely Krishan Lal.. Upon their sealing again by the Magistrate, the samples were sent to FSL for obtaining expert opinion as to the nature of contraband seized. The Truck from where the contraband was recovered was also seized during the course of investigation. 6. The investigation, conducted by three different Investigating Officers, revealed that number ‘PB09E indicated on the number plate of the vehicle seized was forged, in that, PB09E 5683 was the number of one Motor Cycle owned by Sh. Saroop Singh son of Goga Singh, resident of Lakhan Ke Padda, District Kapurthala. On further enquiry, it was found that the real and actual number of the seized Truck was HP2OC-0479 which was registered with RTO Una, H.P in the name of the appellant, a resident of Dhallan, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. The investigation further revealed that the appellant had got entered his wrong address, in that, he was actually the resident of Alampur, Tehsil Kartarpur, District Jallandhar and was involved in trafficking of illegal drugs. It also came to light that the appellant was involved in four different FIRs under various Sections of NDPS Act registered in Police Station, Kartarpur, Police Station Divison No. 8, Jalandhar and that the challans in the aforesaid cases were pending disposal in the competent Courts. 7. On the basis of aforesaid revelations, the custody of the appellant, who was already in jail in Kapurthala, was obtained and the identification parade got conducted to identify him. 7. On the basis of aforesaid revelations, the custody of the appellant, who was already in jail in Kapurthala, was obtained and the identification parade got conducted to identify him. The Investigating Agency, after having found that it was the appellant/accused, who was the owner and driver of the seized vehicle bearing registration No. HP2OC-0479 carrying a forged number plate bearing No.PB09E/5683 and deceiving the public, police and other agencies to carry out his illegal activity of drug trafficking and that on the date of occurrence, he had loaded two quintals of poppy straw by manufacturing/creating a special cabin in the surface of his Truck, was, prima facie, guilty of commission of offences under Sections 420, 471, 467 RPC and 8/15 NDPS Act. The Investigating Officer presented the challan before the competent Court. On 02.02.2015, the appellant was charged for commission of offences aforementioned to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, 8. With a view to sustain the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined PWs Tilak Raj, Rohit Salaria, Bodh Raj, Mohd Hanief, Jagdev Singh, Rohit Koul, Om Parkash, Mohd. Faizal Qureshi, Ravinder Kumar, Krishan Lal alias Labu, Hans Raj, Challu Ram, Babu Ram, Chet Raj, Satpal and Ashok Sharma as witnesses. Apart from leading oral evidence, the prosecution also relied upon the documentary evidence in the shape of Rapat No.8, report No.23, report No.04, the seizure of Truck, spurdnama of seal, report of chemical analyst and Identification Parade etc. 9. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence was put to the appellant and his statement was recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, but opted not to produce any evidence in defence. 10. The trial Court, after hearing the P.P for the State and the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record on file, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had, by leading cogent evidence brought home the charge against the appellant and that it was firmly established and proved that the appellant was guilty of commission of offences under Sections 8/15 NDPS Act and 465,471 RPC. The trial Court, accordingly, recorded the judgment of conviction on 22.11.2018 and simultaneously awarded sentence to the appellant for a period of 20 years and a fine of Rs.2.00 lacs under Section 8/15 NDPS Act, 2 years and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 465 RPC and 3 years and a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 471 RPC. However, all the sentences were provided to run concurrently. The judgment of conviction and sentence was pronounced by the trial Court on 22.11.2018 which is impugned by the appellant before us in this appeal. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 12. Indisputably, the Truck involved in trafficking of contraband was seized by the patrolling party, headed by H/C Tilak Raj which was parked on road side at Maneh Morh. At the time of its seizure, there was nobody in the said Truck to own it. As per the prosecution version, when the Truck was signaled to stop by the patrolling party at Kishanpur Tawi pul, it was being driven by a person who was accompanied by another person sitting beside him in the said Truck. It seems that the enquiry made by the Investigating Officer to find out the driver and the owner of the seized Truck led to the discovery of the appellant who was found to be the registered owner of the seized Truck which carried the actual registration Number as HP2OC-0479 which the appellant had forged and indicated on the number plate as ‘PB09E-5683. It was, thus, found by the Investigating Officer that it was the appellant who was, by forging the number plate, duping the public, police and other agencies and carrying on his activities of illegal drug trafficking. To prove all these facts, which are narrated by the prosecution in the challan on the basis of investigation carried by the Investigating Officer from time to time, strong reliance was placed on the information in the shape of various communications received from RTO Kapurthala and RTO Una, Himachal Pradesh. 13. Insofar as the seizure of the contraband and taking of samples therefrom is concerned, suffice it to say that the procedure adopted by the I.O was not in complete conformity with law. 13. Insofar as the seizure of the contraband and taking of samples therefrom is concerned, suffice it to say that the procedure adopted by the I.O was not in complete conformity with law. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that as per the prosecution, 100 small polythene packets containing 2 kg of poppy straw each were recovered from the seized Truck. These small packets containing two kg of poppy straw each were put in 04 big bags (25 packets each) and the samples of 250 gms each were picked up from 04 packets of two kg contraband picked up one each from the four big bags. It is this material which was taken out as samples by the I.O that was sent to the FSL for chemical examination. The Chemical Analyst, upon examination, found the contraband to be poppy straw. If the prosecution evidence on this aspect is completely believed, it would mean that the total contraband that was found in the seized Truck and recovered therefrom by the Investigating Agency would be 08 kgs. We are saying so because we are not sure, rather nobody could be sure as to whether other 24 packets lying in each of the four big bags were poppy straw or some other material. 14. Indisputably, no sample was taken out from rest of 24 polythene packets lying in each of the four bags for their chemical examination by the FSL. If we were to agree with the prosecution case and accept the evidence sufficient to prove the prosecution case, it would still be a case of commission of offence by the appellant in relation to an intermediate quantity of the contraband for which the maximum punishment that can be imposed could extend up to 10 years and a fine up to Rs.1.00 lac. 15. Insofar as the Test Identification Parade is concerned, we are convinced that the evidence on record is sufficient to conclude that same has been conducted by the Investigating Agency in consonance with law. The case against the appellant was registered in Police Station, Jajjar Kotli. The appellant, who was, at the relevant point of time, in a jail in Kapurthala, was brought by the Investigating Officer to the Police Station, Nagrota for conducting the Test Identification Parade in accordance with law. The case against the appellant was registered in Police Station, Jajjar Kotli. The appellant, who was, at the relevant point of time, in a jail in Kapurthala, was brought by the Investigating Officer to the Police Station, Nagrota for conducting the Test Identification Parade in accordance with law. The SHO P/S Nagrota requested PW Babu Ram, Naib-Tehsildar, Khour to conduct the Test Identification Parade on 02.09.2014 under his supervision. As has come in the evidence of PW Mohd Hanief, a milkman, who, along with 07 persons, was called to the Police Station, Nagrota and was made to stand along with others in a group. He further states that in his presence, PW Jagdev Singh identified the appellant from the group of 08 persons. PW Bodh Raj has also testified the fact that he was present in the Test Identification Parade and identified the appellant during such parade. 16. The plea of leaned counsel for the appellant, that, in the absence of the witnesses, identifying the accused in the Test Identification Parade, already registering the special features at the time when they saw the appellant/accused committing the offence, the Test Identification parade conducted and the accused identified therein cannot be said to be in consonance with law, is an argument made in despair and cannot be accepted. 17. It has amply come in the prosecution evidence that when the police party headed by H/C signaled the Truck to stop, the driver of the Truck stopped his vehicle. It was only when he was asked to show the documents of the vehicle, he fled away from the spot and was chased by the patrolling party in a private car. It, therefore, cannot be said that PWs Bodh Raj and Jagdev Singh who were part of the patrolling party had not been able to notice the special features of the appellant sufficient to identify him later. In these circumstances, as also clear evidence on record, we do not find any fault with the manner in which the Test Identification parade was conducted and the appellant was identified. 18. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in the cases of Ram Kishan Mithanlal Sharma vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 105 and State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Lekh Raj, (2000) 1 SCC 247 are not of much help to the appellant. 18. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in the cases of Ram Kishan Mithanlal Sharma vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 105 and State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Lekh Raj, (2000) 1 SCC 247 are not of much help to the appellant. That apart, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any evidence on record to show that the samples picked up by the Investigating Officer, sealed by the SDPO and the Executive Magistrate on spot were on receipt found tampered. PW Rohit Koul Assistant Scientific Officer, FSL Jammu, who received the sealed samples on 08.10.2010 in FSL found all the seals on the samples in tact. If that be the admitted position, it cannot be said that the samples which were taken out from the contraband recovered from the seized Truck and those which were examined in the FSL were different or that during their transit, there was any tampering by any person. 19. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence on record is deficient with regard to the custody of the samples after they were picked up on spot on 06.02.2010 and reached FSL on 08.02.2010. There is no evidence on record to the effect that after taking the samples, the remaining material was deposited in the Malkhana. We, however, could not find out from the testimony of any of the prosecution witnesses as to how the samples after these were taken on 06.02.2010, were dealt with before these were delivered in the FSL on 08.02.2010. Having said that, we are still of the opinion that if the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the appellant/accused is proved; the taking out of the samples and their sealing by the I.O and the Executive Magistrate is proved; it is also proved that the samples with the seals intact reached the FSL where these, on examination, were found to be a contraband item, it is enough to conclude that there was no tampering with the samples en-route from the place of recovery to the FSL. In the face of this evidence available on record, we are convinced that the material that was tested in the FSL and was found to be contraband item i.e poppy straw was the same as was picked up by way of samples from the material recovered from the seized Truck abandoned on road side at Maneh Morh by the appellant. 20. The appellant, as we are told by learned counsel for parties, has already undergone more than 09 years of the sentence and, therefore, ends of justice would meet if we let off the appellant with the sentence already undergone by him with fine of Rs.25000/- only. 21. In view of the discussion made above, we allow this appeal partly and set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 8/15 NDPS Act insofar as, it relates to the ‘commercial quantity’ and instead convict him for the offence under section 8/15 NDPS Act in respect of ‘intermediate quantity’ and sentence him to the imprisonment already undergone with a fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences under Sections 465 and 471 RPC is upheld. As is directed by the trial Court, all the sentences were to run concurrently and, therefore, the appellant shall be deemed to have undergone all the sentences. Since the appellant has already served the sentences as per the judgment passed by us, therefore, a direction is issued to the concerned Jail authorities to set the appellant at liberty forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case, subject to payment of fine in terms of this judgment. Disposed of accordingly. Trial Court record be sent back along with a copy of this judgment.