Manohar Lal Visa, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15-9-2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge VIth, Bettiah in Trial No. 5 of 2002 convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and Section 20(ii)(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 'the N.D.P.S Act').
2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on receipt of secret information that a group of smugglers carrying Ganja was to pass through Sidhwalia Dhala under Sikta Police Station, a raiding party comprising Customs and Special Services Bureau (S.S.B.) officials was organised in the night of 3-11 -2001. The raiding party reached the place and it was divided in two groups. At about 4.10 a.m. on 4-11-2001, appellant was caught along with 33 kilograms of Nepali Ganja in four packets wrapped in polythene sheets three bicycles, three fishing nets and one ordinary basket. The Ganja was being moved to the destination in the disguise of fishing equipments loaded on bicycles and on seeing S.S.B. Jawans, the smugglers hurriedly jumped into the canal except the appellant who was caught. The appellant along with items mentioned above was taken in custody in presence of two independent witnesses. Appellant was brought to the Customs Office, Sikta for due verification and interrogation and he was finally arrested under N.D.P.S. Act on 5-11-2001. Total value of goods seized amounted to Rs. 70,210/-. A written complaint (Exhibit-6) was filed by Sunil Kumar Sinha (P.W. 1), Inspector, Customs (P) Circle, Sikta, West Champaran. Cognizance of the case was taken and appellant was put on trial. After trial, appellant was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. The defence of appellant, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, is that no incriminating article was recovered from his possession and he has been falsely implicated in this case.
3. In order to prove its case, altogether seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of prosecution. Sunil Kumar Sinha (P.W. 1) is the complainant. Tarkeshwar Singh (P.W. 2), Sepoy Dadan Mishra (P.W. 3), Ashok Kumar (P.W. 4) and Basudeo Baitha (P.W. 6) were the members of raiding party. Md. Usmal Ali (P.W. 5) and Prakash Gandhi (P.W. 7) who are said to be seizure list witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and they have been declared hostile. Though Prakash Gandhi (P.W. 7) has proved his signature (Exhibit-3) on seizure list but has said that he had put his signature on a blank paper.
4. Sunil Kumar Sinha (P.W. 1), the complainant was said that on 4-11 -2001, he was posted as Inspector at Sikta Customs Office and officials of Customs Department and S.S.B. Department had organised a raiding party and on 3-11-2001, officials of S.S.B. had received information that Ganja would be taken away by smugglers through Sidhwalia Dhala and on the night of 3-11-2001, officials of customs and S.S.B. Departments in two groups surrounded Sidhwalia Dhala and at about 4 a.m. on 4-11-2001 a group carrying Ganja was seen passing and when members of group saw officials of S.S.B. Department, they started running away and except appellant, others managed to escape by jumping in the canal. Appellant was caught and from his possession, 33 kilograms of Ganja. three bicycles, three old fishing nets and one ordinary basket were recovered which were taken in possession by customs officials and both the teams came to office where seized articles were examined and appellant was put to interrogation and it was found that Ganja was Nepali Ganja and all the articles and Ganja were seized. Interrogatory statement of appellant was recorded and on 3-11-2002 at about 6 p.m. appellant was formally arrested and, thereafter finger prints of appellant, seizure memo, Panchnama, identification marks and summary of case were sent to Court and seized articles were kept in customs office at Raxaul. He has proved the seizure list which is marked Exhibit- 1. He has also proved the fingerprints of appellant taken on paper bearing his signature which is marked Exhibit-2 and has also proved identification mark of appellant (Exhibit-3) and memo of arrest of appellant (Exhibit-4), forwarding report (Exhibit-3) and prosecution report (Exhibit-6). In cross-examination, he has said that seized Ganja was sent to Gazipur for chemical test and report (Exhibit-7) received from there was forwarded to Court on 7-1-2002. Tarkeshwar Singh (P.W. 2), Sepoy Dadan Mishra (P.W. 3), Ashok Kumar (P.W. 4) and Basudeo Baitha (P.W. 6) have supported the case of prosecution and have said that Ganja and other articles such as bicycles, fishing nets etc. were recovered from the possession of appellant.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has argued that the complainant, in para 24 of his evidence, has admitted that appellant was caught by Gopal Chandra Das of S.S.B. and in para 25, he has admitted that before lodging prosecution, he did not record the statement of Gopal Chandra Das. It has further been argued that all the witnesses examined in this case on behalf of prosecution belong to Customs Department and not a single witness from S.S.B. Department has been examined. It is true that witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution all belong to Customs, Department but then their evidence, if it is found otherwise satisfactory, cannot be brushed aside only on the ground that none from S.S.B. Department has been examined. When it is the specific case of prosecution that a raiding party was organised consisting of officials from Customs Department and S.S.B. Department, the evidence of officials of Customs Department as to the actions of raiding party and their result is relevant and its evidentiary value remains intact.
6. The learned Counsel of appellant has further argued that Tarkeshwar Singh (P.W. 2) has not identified the appellant in Court and in para 8 of his cross-examination, has said that from the cycle of the man who was caught, nothing statement has been given by P.W. 2 but in para 12 of his evidence, this witness has clearly stated that there were four bicycles and, number of persons who were running away was also four. In para 1 of his evidence, he has said that when his party saw the cycle party carrying Ganja. his party raised hulla on which all the persons carrying Ganja from cycles started running away but one of them was caught and remaining fled away and Ganja was recovered and, thereafter, Ganja and the man who was caught were brought to customs office. This evidence supports the case of prosecution that on the alleged day and time, one person with Ganja was caught. On seeing the appellant in Court, he did not say that appellant is not the man who was caught. He simply stated that appellant looked like the man who was caught. No doubt, his evidence is not specific that appellant was the man who was caught but at the same time, this statement that appellant looked like the man who was caught does not completely rules out the possibility of appellant being the man who was in fact caught. Besides this evidence of other prosecution witnesses is there that it was the appellant who was caught. The prosecution has brought on record the interrogatory statement of appellant recorded under Section 47 of N.D.P.S. Act in which appellant has accepted that he along with others was carrying Ganja and on challenge by informant party, his companions managed to escape but he was caught. On behalf of appellant, nothing has been brought on record to show that this statement was obtained by complainant or any of his colleagues by exertion of inducement, threat, coercion or duress or extracted by illegally detaining the appellant in an unauthorised prolonged custody, or obtained by using third degree methods. In this view of the matter, this interrogatory statement cannot be rejected. The evidence of prosecution, oral and documentary including the interrogatory statement of appellant, prove the case of prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Because 33 kilograms of Ganja)a was recovered from the possession of the appellant, therefore, offence committed by him comes under Sections 20(ii)(c) of N.D.P.S. Act the punishment of which is rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years and fine not less than Rs. 1,00,000/-. In this view of the matter, the sentence awarded to the appellant is the minimum sentence but in the judgment of Court below, section of punishment has wrongly been mentioned as Section 20(ii)(b) of N.D.P.S. Act which appears to be a typographical error because charge against appellant was framed under Section 20(ii)(c) of N.D.P.S. Act and he was put to trial for this charge.
7. I, therefore, find no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment and order of Court below convicting and sentencing the appellant are hereby confirmed.