Rajiv Sharma, J.These appeals are instituted against the judgment dated 15.10.2009 rendered by learned Special Judge, Chamba in sessions trial No. 8 of 2009, whereby the accused Shafhi Mohammad was convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for the sake of convenience), whereas the accused Rakesh Kumar was convicted under Section 29 of the Act. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one year.

2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 16.12.2008 PW11 Inspector R.P. Jaswal, SHO, Police Station, Sadar, Chamba, proceeded on patrolling duty towards Pukhri, Kiani along with HC Anirudh, PW1 HC Dev Raj, Constable Shiv Kumar and PW2 Surinder Kumar in a Gypsy driven by Constable Suresh Kumar. At about 9.30 P.M., a nakka was laid at Jukyani Morh. Two vehicles being driven by PW3 Mohinder Kumar and Narender Kumar came from Pukhri side. They were stopped. In the meantime, another vehicle bearing registration No. PB-07-H-6606 being driven by accused Rakesh Kumar came there. It was signaled to stop. However, accused Rakesh Kumar did not stop the vehicle and tried to jump the Nakka. The vehicle was stopped by the police officials. The accused Shafhi Mohammad was also found sitting in the vehicle. He was having a bag in his lap. Options were given to the accused Rakesh Kumar and Shafhi Mohammad whether they wanted to give their search to a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer or the Police vide memos Ext. PW1/A and Ext. PW1/B respectively. They consented to be searched by the police. PW11 Inspector R.P. Jaswal gave his personal search to the accused, but nothing incriminating was found in his possession. The personal search of the accused Rakesh Kumar was conducted, but nothing incriminating was found in his possession. The bag, which was found in possession of accused Shafhi Mohammad, was checked and it was found containing charas in the shape of sticks and small balls. The charas weighed 9.100 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn and sealed with seal impression "A" at three places in separate parcels. The bulk charas was packed in the same bag and put in another parcel, which was sealed with the same seal at ten places. NCB form, in triplicate, was filled in vide Ext. PW10/C. Seal impression was also affixed on the NCB form. The sample parcels and the parcel containing bulk charas were taken into possession vide memo, Ext. PW1/C. Ruqua, Ext. PW11/A was prepared and was sent to Police Station, Chamba, through PW2 Constable Surinder Kumar, on the basis of which, FIR, Ext. PW8/A was registered by PW8 ASI Lal Singh. The case property along with NCB form, seizure memo, and sample seal were deposited with PW10 HC Kailash Chand. He made entry in the malkhana register vide Ext. PW10/B. On 18.12.2008, one sample parcel along with sample seal, NCB form, copy of recovery memo and copy of the FIR were deposited at FSL Junga by PW6 Constable Prabhat Chand vide RC No. 216/2008, Ext. PW10/A. As per the report of Chemical Examiner, Ext. PW11/C, the same was found to be mixture of cannabis and sample of charas. Special report, Ext. PW5/B was prepared. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the trial court after completing all the codal formalities.

4. The prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of the prosecution and claimed innocence. Learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused under Sections 20 and 29 of the Act vide judgment dated 15.10.2009, as stated hereinabove. Hence, the appeal.

5. Mr. Anup Chitkara, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. According to him, there were overwriting in malkhana register, Ext. PW10/B and memos, Ext. DA and DB, whereby information qua arrest of the accused was supplied to their relatives. He further contended that there is serious doubt the manner in which the accused were apprehended in the Nakka laid at Jukyani Morh.

6. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General, has supported the impugned judgment dated 15.10.2009.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment and record carefully.

8. PW1 HC Dev Raj testified that on 16.12.2008, he along with SHO R.P. Jaswal, HC Anirudh, Constable Shiv Kumar and Constable Surinder Kumar went in an official vehicle towards Jukyani. A nakka was laid. At about 9.30 P.M., the police party was checking two vehicles. In the meantime, one vehicle bearing registration No. PB 07H-6606 came from Pukhri side. The driver tried to run away. However, the police party stopped him. Rakesh Kumar was driving the vehicle and Shafhi Mohammad was sitting by the side of Rakesh Kumar. They disclosed their names and addresses. They were suspected. One bag was recovered from the lap of Shafhi Mohammad. SHO R.P. Jaswal asked the accused to give their option as to whether they wanted to give personal search in presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer or to the Police party. The accused gave their options to be searched by the police party vide memos, Ext. PW1/A and Ext. PW1/B. Thereafter, the SHO gave his personal search to both the accused. Memo to this effect was prepared. Personal search of the accused Rakesh Kumar was conducted, but nothing incriminating was recovered from him. A school bag was recovered from the accused Shafhi Mohammad. The bag was checked. It was found containing another bag. On opening the bag, it was found containing charas in the shape of small balls and small sticks. The charas weighed 9.100 grams. Thereafter, the SHO separated two samples of 25 grams each out of the recovered charas. The samples were packed in separate parcel and sealed with seal impression "A". The remaining charas along with bags were packed in separate parcel and sealed with seal impression "A". Specimen seal impressions were taken on a cloth of piece. NCB form was filled in by the SHO. Seal impression was also embossed on the NCB form. The seal was handed over to witness Narinder Kumar. The parcels were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW1/C. In cross-examination, he deposed that there was no street light on the spot. They were having search light. The entire investigation was completed at 1.30 A.M.

9. PW2, Constable Surinder Kumar, also corroborated statement of PW1 HC Dev Raj the manner in which the accused were intercepted and the search and seizure of the contraband was carried out. He also made deposition the manner in which the sealing and sampling process was completed. He further deposed that he took Ruqua to the Police Station, Sadar, Chamba and handed over the same to ASI Lal Chand. Copy of the Ruqua was given by him to the Reader to S.P. Chamba. In cross-examination, he deposed that he reached the Police Station at 12.45 A.M. Copy of ruqua was handed over to the Reader to S.P. at 1.15 A.M.

10. PW3, Mohinder Kumar, the independent witness, did not support the case of the prosecution. He was declared hostile. In cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted his signatures on parcel, Ext. P1. According to him, his signatures were obtained on Ext. P-5 and Ext. P-6 on a piece of cloth at Ballu.

11. PW4, Constable Latif Mohammad, deposed that on 18.12.2008, SHO R.P. Jaswal handed over to him one envelope containing special report for being handed over to the S.P. Chamba. He took the special report and handed over it to Reader to S.P. Chamba at 11.20 A.M. in S.P. Office.

12. PW5 HC Tek Chand, deposed that on 17.12.2008, Constable Surinder Kumar came to his residence at 1.15 A.M. midnight at Police Line Chamba and he handed over copy of ruqua, Ext. PW5/A to him. He went to the residence of S.P. Chamba and handed over Ruqua, Ext. PW5/A to S.P. Chamba at 1.30 A.M.

13. PW6, Constable Prabhat Chand, deposed that on 18.12.2008, MHC Kailash Chand, Police Station Sadar, Chamba, handed over to him one sealed parcel sealed with seal impression "A", specimen seal impression and a docket containing documents vide R.C. No. 216/2008, dated 18.12.2008 for being deposited at FSL Junga. He took the case property and deposited the sealed parcel, specimen seal impressions and the docket at FSL Junga. So long the case property remained in his custody, he did not tamper with it.

14. PW7, Constable Deepak Kumar, proved copy of the daily diary No. 49 dated 16.12.2008, Ext. PW7/A.

15. PW8, ASI Lal Singh, testified that on 17.12.2008 Constable Surinder Kumar brought ruqua at 12.45 A.M. on the basis of which FIR, Ext. PW8/A was registered.

16. PW9 Kuldeep Singh, deposed that on 17.2.2009, SHO handed over to him the case file for further investigation. After receiving report from the Chemical Examiner, he handed over the file to the SHO.

17. PW10 Kailash Chand deposed that on 17.12.2008, Inspector R.P. Jaswal deposited with him one bigger parcel containing 9.50 gram charas duly sealed with ten seals of seal impression "A" along with sample seal, two sample parcels of 25 grams each duly sealed with three seals of impression "A", NCB form in triplicate and recovery memo. The same were entered in the malkhana register. On 18.12.2008, he sent one sample parcel, along with sample seal, NCB form-I in triplicate, recovery memo, copy of the FIR to FSL Junga through Constable Prabhat Chand vide R.C. No. 216/2008, who after depositing the same at FSL Junga handed over the R.C., Ext. PW10/A to him. He also proved abstract of malkhana register, Ext. PW10/B.

18. PW11, R.P. Jaswal, deposed the manner in which the accused were apprehended and the search and seizure of the contraband was carried out. He also made deposition the manner in which the sealing and sampling process was completed. The charas weighed 9.100 grams. Ruqua was prepared for registration of the case. In cross-examination, he deposed that the entire proceedings were completed about 1.30 A.M.

19. Mr. Anup Chitkara, learned Advocate, has failed to point out any discrepancy in evidence the manner in which the accused were intercepted by the police party at Jukyani Morh. Search and seizure of the contraband was carried out strictly in accordance with law. Though PW3 Mohinder Kumar, the independent witness, did not support the case of the prosecution, but in cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, he categorically admitted his signatures on Ext. P1, Ext. P5 and Ext. P6. Statements of official witnesses, PW1 HC Dev Raj PW2 Surinder Kumar and PW11 SHO R.P. Jaswal are consistent, natural and inspire confidence. Their statements can be taken into consideration to record the conviction of the accused. It has come in the statements of PW1 HC Dev Raj, PW2 Constable Surinder Kumar and PW11 SHO R.P. Jaswal that when the accused came in the vehicle near Jukyani Morh, where the nakka was laid, they were signaled to stop. Driver of the vehicle, namely, accused Rakesh Kumar did not stop the vehicle and tried to jump the nakka. They were apprehended. Their names and addresses were ascertained. The accused Shafhi Mohammad was found sitting by the side of driver seat. He was holding a bag in his lap. The charas weighing 9.100 gram was found in it. It has also come in the statement of PW10 Kailash Chand that on 17.12.2008, Inspector R.P. Jaswal deposited with him one bigger parcel containing 9.50 gram charas duly sealed with ten seals of seal impression "A" along with sample seal, two sample parcels of 25 grams each duly sealed with three seals of impression "A", NCB form in triplicate and recovery memo. He entered the same in the malkhana register. On 18.12.2008, he also sent one sample parcel, along with sample seal, NCB form-I in triplicate, recovery memo, copy of the FIR to FSL Junga through PW6 Constable Prabhat Chand vide R.C. No. 216/2008, who deposited the same at FSL Junga and handed over the R.C., Ext. PW10/A to him. PW6 Prabhat Chand categorically deposed that the case property was not tampered with when it remained in his possession. As per statement of PW8, ASI Lal Singh, on 17.12.2008 at 12.45 A.M. Constable Surinder Kumar handed over to him Ruqua at Police Station, on the basis of which FIR, Ext. PW8/A was registered. PW3 Mohinder Kumar did not deny his signatures on seizure memo, Ext. PW1/C. According to the chemical examiners report, Ext. PW11/C the entire mass of the sample was mixture of cannabis and sample of charas.

20. Mr. Anup Chitkara, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that there is an overwriting in the abstract of malkhana register, Ext. PW10/B. It has not caused any prejudice to the accused since it has come in the chemical examiners report, Ext. PW11/C that when the sample parcel was received at FSL, Junga, it was sealed with seal impression "A" at three places. The seals were intact and tallied with the seal impression sent by PW11 SHO R.P. Jaswal on NCB-1 form. Thus, it is clear that the sample parcel reached FSL Junga in a safe condition and the case property was never tampered with. Mere non-production of the seal used for sealing the samples and bulk parcel is not at all fatal to the case of the prosecution. Samples were drawn from the entire recovered charas. It has come in the statement of PW11 SHO R.P. Jaswal that he had drawn samples weighing 25 grams each by breaking small balls and small sticks. There is nothing on record to establish that the samples were not drawn from the whole of the recovered charas.

21. Mr. Anup Chitkara, learned Advocate, has also argued that there is an overwriting in Ext. DA and Ext. DB. According to him, initially crime number was written as 250/2008 and later on it was changed to 259/2008. It has not caused any prejudice to the case of the accused because in fact the FIR was registered on 17.12.2008 under Sections 20 and 29 of the Act against the accused.

22. The prosecution has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused were involved in the crime. Statements of the police officials are consistent, credible and inspire confidence. They had no animosity with the accused. They cannot be stated to be interested witnesses. Learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Act. We find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment rendered by the learned trial court.

23. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis, made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.