A.K. Awasthy, J.
1. Appellant/accused has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 12-11-97, in Special Case No. 14/97, passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Ujjain of his conviction and sentence under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'NDPS Act') for 10 years' RI with fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default further RI for 2 years.
2. Prosecution case is that P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3), Sub Inspector, Central Narcotic Bureau, Ratlam received the information on 4-12-96 at about 7.45 p.m. by the approver on telephone that the accused carrying heroin is coming from Gujarat to Ratlam and the information was recorded in memo (Ex. P-3) and he went alongwith raiding party to the Railway Station, Ratlam where on platform No. 4 the accused was found standing near the bathroom. P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3) informed him that he is suspected as carrying the contraband and he has a right to get himself searched in presence of the nearest Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer and the accused stated that he should be searched before the Gazetted Officer. P.K. Sharma (P.W, 3) prepared memo (Ex. P-1) and S.K. Khandelwal (P.W.1), District Opium Officer was called by him and before him and the Panch witnesses Ganeshlal (P.W. 6) and Suresh (P.W. 7) the personal search of the accused was made and a packet from his underwear was seized in which there was heroin weighing 500 gms.
3. P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3) has drawn two samples of 5-5 gms. of heroin and two packets along with the seized heroin were sealed by him and on the seizure memo (Ex. P-2) signatures were taken of the accused and the witnesses. The 'Muddemal' and the accused were taken to the District Opium Officer, Jaora and the FIR (Ex. P-8) was registered against the accused. The 'Muddemal' was kept in the safe custody by the District Excise Officer and the information regarding arrest of the accused was sent to the higher authority. The sample packet was sent for chemical analysis at Neemuch where Mohan Kumar (P.W. 9), Assistant Chemical Examiner conducted the examination and indicated in his report (Ex. P-3) that the substance was Psychotropic drug known as heroin. The investigation of the case was done by the Inspector CBN Ashok Kumar Gupta (P.W. 8) and after usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused in the Special Court, NDPS Act, Ujjain on 21-2-97 for offence punishable under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act.
4. The prosecution has examined District Opium Officer S.K. Khandelwal (P.W. 1), Inspector CBN Premnarain (P.W. 2), Sub Inspector Narcotics Bureau P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3), Sub Inspector Narcotics Rajendra Kumar Bhandari (P.W. 4), Sub Inspector Narcotics Faiyaz Ahmed (P.W. 5), Panch witnesses Dinesh Chandra (P.W. 6), Suresh Chandra (P.W. 7), Inspector Ashok Kumar Gupta (P.W. 8) and Assistant Chemical Examiner Mohan Kumar (P.W. 9). Learned Trial Court held that the accused was found in possession of heroin and the provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52, 55 and 57 were complied with and the accused was found guilty and sentenced as above.
5. The appellant has filed this appeal from jail and it is alleged that the learned Trial Court has erred in believing the statements of official witnesses in spite of the fact that the mandatory provisions were not complied with and as such the accused should be acquitted.
6. P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3) has stated that on 4-12-96 he was posted as Inspector CBN, Ratlam and he has received information that the accused is involved in drug trafficking. P.K. Sharma (P.W.3) has further stated that he has recorded the information received by telephone in Ex. P-3 and, thereafter, alongwith raiding party he reached on platform No. 4 where near the lavatory he found the accused standing in suspicious circumstances. P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3) has further stated that he informed the accused that he suspected him of trafficking in drug and he has a right of his personal search before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer and the accused said that he should be searched before the Gazetted Officer. P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3) has further stated that Ex. P-1 memo was prepared by him regarding consent of the accused and, thereafter, S.K. Khandelwal (P.W.1), who is District Opium Officer, was called on the platform and before him the search was made and 500 gms. of heroin was found in the underwear of the accused. P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3) has further stated that the article was seized and the signatures on the seizure memo (Ex. P-2) of the accused and the witnesses were taken by him.
7. S.K. Khandelwal (P.W. 1) has stated that oji 4-12-96 at about 9.30 p.m. he received wireless message of P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3) and he went on platform No. 4 of Railway Station, Ratlam where the accused gave consent of his search by me and, thereafter, in the search of the body of the accused 500 gms., of heroin was seized inside his underwear and two samples of 5 gms. each were drawn up and sealed. Premnarain Saxena (P.W. 2) has stated that he went with S.K. Khandelwal (P.W. 1) on the railway station where heroin was seized from the possession of the accused. Faiyaz Ahmed (P.W. 5) has stated that on 4-12-96 he went with S.K. Khandelwal (P.W. 1) to the railway station where the contraband was seized from the possession of the accused. There is nothing in the cross-examinations of P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3), Premnarain (P.W. 2) and Faiyaz Ahmed (P.W. 5) to doubt the veracity of their statements. The statements of S.K. Khandelwal (P.W. 1), Premnarain (P.W. 2) and Faiyaz Ahmed (P.W. 5) fully corroborate the statement of P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3) and the blameless statement of all these four witnesses proves beyond doubt that 500 gms. of heroin was seized from the accused.
8. It is rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the State that the independent witnesses Dinesh Chandra (P.W. 6) and Suresh Chandra (P.W. 7) have not supported the prosecution case, but in view of the statement of the above 4 witnesses it can not be said that failure to support the prosecution case by independent prosecution evidence adversely affects the credit of the 4 prosecution witnesses.
9. Dinesh Chandra (P.W. 6) and Suresh Chandra (P.W. 7) have stated that opium was not recovered from the possession of the accused. Dinesh Chandra (P.W. 6) and Suresh Chandra (P.W. 7) have admitted their signatures on the papers (Exs. P-1 to P-7) prepared at the time of seizure. From the statements of these two witnesses it is clear that they were rightly declared hostile and they are hiding the truth. It is observed in case of State of Punjab v. Balveer Singh, 1994 (1) EFR 516, by the Apex Court that the testimony of the public officer is not to be doubted merely on the ground that the independent witnesses have not supported them and as a rule of caution the statement of the official witnesses should be scrutinized closely. In the circumstances of the present case, where the official witnesses of the prosecution have no axe to grind against the appellant, I see no reason to doubt the veracity of their statement. Learned Trial Court has not committed any error in believing the statement of S.K. Khandelwal (P.W. 1), Premnarain (P.W. 2), P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3) and Faiyaz Ahmed (P.W. 5) and it was rightly held that the accused was found in possession of 500 gms. of heroin.
10. P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3) has stated that the information received by him on telephone that the accused is carrying the drug was recorded by him and when he reached on the railway station he informed the accused that he has a right to get his search done before the nearest Magistrate or nearest Gazetted Officer. The statement of P.K. Sharma (P.W.3) is corroborated by the memo (Ex. P-3) and the consent memo (Ex. P-1). From the statement of S.K. Khandelwal (P.W. 1), it is clear that he was Gazetted Officer and the accused has consented for his search before him. Consequently, it is clear that the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 were duly complied with.
11. P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3) has stated that he has informed the accused that he is going to be arrested for possessing the heroin and arrest memo (Ex. P-5) was prepared and after arrest the accused was taken to District Opium Office, Jaora where the FIR was recorded. P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3) has further stated that he has deposited the 'Muddemal' in the 'Malkhana' and the sealed packet was sent for the chemical examination. Rajendra Kumar Bhandari (P.W. 4) has stated that he was posted as Additional Sub Inspector in Narcotics Bureau, Ratlam and he has taken the sealed packet for chemical examination to Alkaloid Factory, Neemuch. Rajendra Kumar Bhandari (P.W. 4) has further stated that Ex. P-9 is the receipt given by the officer of the Alkaloid Factory of receiving the sample. Mohan Kumar (P.W. 9) has stated that he has received sealed packet alongwith the specimen seal and found that the packet was duly sealed and on examination, it is found that the contents were heroin. Mohan Kumar (P.W. 9) has further stated that Ex. P-13 is his report and after conducting the chemical examination he has sent the sample packet to the Department. From the report (Ex. P-13), it is clear that the duly authorized person has conducted the chemical analysis and it was found to be the contraband drug known as heroin.
12. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that all the precautions were taken by the prosecution to see that the sample recovered from the possession of the accused was the same which was sent to the Chemical Analyst and it was not tampered or changed during its transaction from seizure up to the chemical analysis. From the statement of P.K. Sharma (P.W. 3) and letter (Ex. P-8), it is clear that soon after the arrest of accused the information provided under Section 57 of the NDPS Act was sent to the superior officer. Consequently, it is clear that all the procedural safeguards were taken and there is no violation of the statutory procedure provided under the Act. In the aforesaid circumstances the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in holding the accused guilty for unauthorized possession of the heroin. The prescribed minimum sentence is awarded to the accused.
13. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed.