- (1.) ONKARESHWAR Bhatt, J. This appeal has been directed against judgment and order dated 24-4-2000 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 95 of 1997 by the then Addl. Sessions Judge (E. C. Act) Bulandshahr. The appellant has been convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees one lac and in default of payment of fine one year further rigorous imprisonment has been awarded.
(2.) SRI Gyanendra Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant and SRI R. S. Sengar, learned AGA appearing for the State have been heard. Sub-Inspector Rajiv Kumar Gupta PW 1 was posted on 22-7-1999 at police station Kotwali Nagar, Bulandshahr. He alongwith Sub- Inspector Upendra Kumar and one constable was on patrol duty. From the side of Avas Vikas Colony when they were coming towards Shastri Park and were near the well of Garerias the appellant was seen coming carrying a plastic bag in his left hand. On seeing the police party the appellant tried to retreat fastly but was apprehended. On search three kilograms of Doda Post was recovered from the yellow polythene which the appellant was carrying and the same was seized. A recovery memo was prepared on the spot and the seized contraband was sealed. First Information Report of the case was lodged by Sub-Inspector Rajiv Kumar Gupta on 22-7-1997 at 10 p. m. at police station Kotwali Nagar. The seized contraband was also deposited at the police station. On analysis the contraband was found to be Papaver Somniferum Linn. For proving the apprehension search and seizure PW 1 Sub- Inspector Rajiv Kumar Gupta and Sub- Inspector Upendra Kumar PW 2 have been examined. The contradiction tried to be pointed out in their statements is not very material. It is well settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be a police official. It has come in the evidence that although the witnesses of public had gathered but they declined to be a witness. The facts of the case show that arrest, search and seizure of the contraband was made in normal course of investigation into a suspected offence as provided under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it was during that search that the contraband has been found. The facts of the case also show that there was no prior information to Sub-Inspector Rajiv Kumar Gupta. In such a situation the trial Court has rightly held that Section 50 of the Act is not attracted. This view finds support from the case State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, reported in 1995 (1) JIC 382 (SC) 1994 Supreme Court Case (Criminal) Page 634.
(3.) IT has come in evidence that the contraband was sealed on the spot and it was deposited at the police station. According to Section 55 of the Act it is the officer in charge of the police station who is custodian of the seized article which has been delivered to him. The report of Chemical Examiner shows that the alleged seized article was received by him on 10-9- 1997. The report of Chemical Examiner further shows that 3. 250 Kilograms were received for analysis. IT is contended that the weight of the seized contraband is mentioned in the recovery memo as three kilograms. This weight of three kilograms appears to have been mentioned on estimation. IT has not come in evidence that after seizure it was actually weighed on scale by the Sub-Inspector. Since the weight is mentioned on estimation in the recovery memo and since the article was not actually weighed on the scale the mention of 3. 250 Kilograms in the report of the Chemical Examiner does not affect the veracity of the witnesses or cast doubt on the seizure of he contraband. The two witnesses of fact identified the seized article before the Court which was in yellow polythene and have also stated that it was recovered from possession of the appellant. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty. No interference with the findings of the trial Court is required. The appeal has, therefore, no merit and is accordingly dismissed.;