HARBANS LAL,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.7.2001/order of sentence dated 27.7.2001 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Ferozepur, whereby he convicted and sentenced Joga Singh as well as Swaran Singh alias Tota Singh, both accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of the same, the defaulter to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, 'the Act'). As set up by the prosecution, on 18.4.1993 at about 10.30 P.M., Inspector Balkar Singh SHO of Police Station Dharamkot, accompanied by other police officials set up Naka (picket) on the bank of Sutlej river in the area of village Chaktarewala. On 19.4.1993 around 4.00 A.M. a tractor trolley came from eastern side which was signalled to stop with the help of torch-light. The same was being driven by accused Joga Singh, whereas the accused Swaran Singh was sitting on the bags loaded in the trolley. The SHO suspected the contents of the bag to be of some contraband. He informed the accused of their right to have search of the same in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The accused expressed their faith in the SHO. On search of the trolley, 24 bags containing poppy husk were recovered. 250 grams poppy husk was drawn from each bag to serve as sample and converted into a parcel. The residue of each bag when weighed came to 35 Kgs. which was also converted into a parcel. All the parcels were sealed with the seal BS. The sample seal was also prepared. The seal after use was handed over to ASI Baldev Singh. All the parcels were seized vide recovery memo. The tractor-trolley was taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. The tractor bore registration No. PAF-849. The SHO prepared the rought site plan showing the place of recovery, sent Ruqa to the Police Station, where on its basis, formal F.I.R was recorded and on return to the Police Station, he retained the case property in his own custody in the Malkhana under his own supervision. On receipt of Chemical Examiner's report and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid in the court for trial of both the accused. They were charged under Section 15 of the Act, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
(2.) THE prosecution examined 6 witnesses and closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them. In their defence, they examined DW-1 Balwant Singh as well as DW-2 Jagir Singh.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with their conviction/sentence, they have preferred this appeal.;