CRA-S-2304-SB-2004 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2304-SB-2004 (O&M) Reserved on :-08.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement:-29.07.2026 Uploaded on:-29.07.2026 Omvir … Appellant Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :- Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Praagvir Singh Dhindsa, Advocate and Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, Addl. A.G. Haryana. **** VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . 1. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the consequential order of sentence, both dated 04.11.2004, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, Bhiwani, whereby the appellant, Omvir, has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as unfolded through the testimony of PW-6 Inspector Ram Avtar, the Investigating Officer, is that on 07.10.2003, while he along with other police officials was present near GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.29 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2304-SB-2004 (O&M) -:2:- Bus Stand, Bamla, District Bhiwani, the appellant was apprehended. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (Ex.PD) was served upon him, to which he replied (Ex.PD/1) that he desired to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, was summoned to the spot, and under his supervision, the search of the bag (Ex.P1) carried by the appellant resulted in the recovery of 2 kilograms and 500 grams of charas. Two representative samples of 100 grams each were drawn, and the remaining contraband weighed 2 kilograms and 300 grams. The sample parcels and the residue were sealed with the seals bearing the initials 'RA' and 'SC' and were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PE. 2.1. Thereafter, Ruqa Ex.PC was sent to the police station, on the basis whereof formal FIR Ex.PC/1 was registered. The Investigating Officer prepared the rough site plan, arrested the appellant vide arrest memo Ex.PH, recorded the statements of the witnesses, and, upon returning to the police station, produced the accused, the case property, and the report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act before the SHO for verification. The case property was thereafter deposited in the Malkhana, and upon completion of the investigation, the final report was presented before the trial Court. 3. Upon his appearance, the accused was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, vide order dated 17.01.2004, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3.1. In order to substantiate the charge framed against the accused, the prosecution examined its witnesses and tendered both oral as well as GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.29 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2304-SB-2004 (O&M) -:3:- documentary evidence to establish the allegations levelled against him and to bring home his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him and pleaded innocence. He asserted that no recovery had been effected from his possession and that he had been falsely implicated on account of village factionalism, as he was a member of the Gram Panchayat. In defence, he examined DW-1 Satbir son of Dariya Singh and DW-2 Naresh son of Manphool Singh, whereafter the defence evidence was closed. 5. Upon appreciation of the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 04.11.2004, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of 1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he ₹ was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and the consequential order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent-State of Haryana. Vide order dated 06.05.2008, this Court suspended the substantive sentence of the appellant during the pendency of the appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the paper book as well as the original record with their able assistance. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.29 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2304-SB-2004 (O&M) -:4:- 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment primarily on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that Naresh son of Manphool, the sole independent witness to the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act as well as the arrest and recovery proceedings, though cited as a prosecution witness, was withheld from the witness-box and was instead examined by the defence as DW-2. He categorically deposed that no recovery was effected from the appellant in his presence and that the police had obtained his signatures on blank papers. 8.1. It is further argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses suffer from material contradictions with regard to the time of departure from the police station, arrival at the spot, arrival and stay of the DSP, duration of the proceedings, and return to the police station. Likewise, PW-3 ASI Ranbir Singh and PW-6 Inspector Ram Avtar have given inconsistent versions regarding the place where the writing work was carried out, thereby rendering the prosecution version doubtful. Learned counsel further submits that the affidavits Ex.PA and Ex.PF are defective; the case property was not produced before the trial Court in an intact condition, as PW-3 admitted that the seals were not visible and the particulars of the case were not mentioned on the parcels; and the defence evidence has been erroneously discarded. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the testimony of DW-1 Satbir, Sarpanch of Village Bamla-II, who deposed that the appellant had been falsely implicated due to village factionalism, and DW-2 Naresh, who denied witnessing any recovery from the appellant. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.29 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2304-SB-2004 (O&M) -:5:- 8.2. It is next contended that the seal, after use, was not entrusted to the independent witness but remained with the police officials themselves, thereby compromising the sanctity of the alleged recovery. It is also argued that PW-2 Inspector Hoshiar Singh, SHO, neither stated that he received the case property in a duly sealed condition nor that he affixed his own seal thereon or recorded the statements of the Investigating Officer and the accused, resulting in non-compliance with Section 55 of the NDPS Act. Further, the sample was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory only on 17.10.2003, i.e. after a delay of ten days from the alleged recovery, without any satisfactory explanation. It is further submitted that the appellant was not produced before the competent superior officer within the prescribed period and that the report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act was submitted only on 12.10.2003, five days after the alleged recovery dated 07.10.2003, thereby constituting a violation of the statutory mandate. Learned counsel has also argued that the learned trial Court failed to consider the judgments relied upon by the defence and ignored material infirmities in the prosecution case. 8.3. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed upon Kashmir Singh v. State of Punjab, 2024(2) RCR (Criminal) 308; Arjun Singh @ Marra and another v. State of Punjab, 2023(3) RCR (Criminal) 820; Suba v. State of Haryana, 2023(1) DC (Narcotics) 646; State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh, 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 266; Zora Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 805; and State of Punjab v. Nikku Singh, 2003(4) RCR (Criminal) 421. 8.4. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.29 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2304-SB-2004 (O&M) -:6:- doubt, the impugned judgment suffers from serious legal and factual infirmities, and the appellant, who has already undergone more than four years of the substantive sentence, is entitled to acquittal. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, contending that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. It is submitted that the recovery of the contraband stands duly proved from the testimonies of the official witnesses, whose evidence inspires confidence and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are police officials. It is further argued that the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, including the requirements under Sections 50, 55 and 57, have been substantially complied with. The alleged discrepancies pointed out by the appellant are minor in nature, pertain to trivial aspects of the prosecution case and do not go to the root of the matter so as to affect the credibility of the prosecution version. 9.1. Learned State counsel further submits that the prosecution witnesses have consistently deposed regarding the recovery, seizure, sealing and safe custody of the case property, thereby establishing an unbroken chain of custody. It is contended that no material has been brought on record to suggest any possibility of tampering with the sample parcels or the case property. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory duly corroborates the prosecution case by confirming that the recovered substance was a narcotic drug within the meaning of the Act. It is also argued that the defence version is wholly unsubstantiated and does not probabilise false implication. The testimony of the defence witnesses GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.29 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2304-SB-2004 (O&M) -:7:- neither discredits the prosecution evidence nor creates any reasonable doubt warranting interference with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 9.2. Learned State counsel further contends that the findings of conviction are based upon a proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence and do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or misappreciation of evidence. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be affirmed. 10. The first contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant pertains to the alleged non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The said submission, however, does not merit acceptance. The recovery in the present case was admittedly a chance recovery effected during routine police patrolling and did not arise out of any prior information necessitating a search of any building, conveyance or enclosed place. Consequently, the rigours of Section 42 of the NDPS Act are clearly inapplicable. Equally untenable is the plea regarding non- compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, inasmuch as the contraband was not recovered from the personal search of the appellant but from the bag being carried by him. It is by now well settled that where the recovery is effected from a bag, briefcase or other article carried by the accused, and not from his person, the safeguards envisaged under Section 50 are not attracted. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly rejected the said contention. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.29 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2304-SB-2004 (O&M) -:8:- 10.1. The next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has failed to establish the link evidence on account of alleged defects in the verification of the affidavits tendered by the formal witnesses. This contention is equally devoid of substance. The record unequivocally demonstrates that after tendering their affidavits, the formal witnesses entered the witness box, deposed on oath before the Court and were subjected to detailed cross-examination by the defence. Thus, the appellant was afforded a full and effective opportunity to test the veracity and credibility of the said witnesses. In such circumstances, any alleged irregularity or technical defect in the verification of their affidavits pales into insignificance and does not, in any manner, prejudice the defence or affect the evidentiary value of their substantive testimony recorded before the Court. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly discarded the said objection. 10.2. Learned counsel has further contended that the prosecution deliberately gave up the independent witness, who subsequently appeared as DW-2 and deposed that no recovery had been effected in his presence. This submission also fails to inspire confidence. The prosecution specifically gave up the said witness on the ground that he had been won over by the defence. The subsequent conduct of the witness lends credence to the said apprehension. While appearing as DW-2, Naresh resiled from his earlier stand and deposed that nothing incriminating had been recovered from the possession of the appellant. Significantly, however, he admitted his signatures on the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act as well as on the consent memo. His explanation that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers surfaced for the first time during his testimony GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.29 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2304-SB-2004 (O&M) -:9:- before the Court. Admittedly, he had never lodged any complaint before any authority alleging that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers or that the appellant had been falsely implicated. The said explanation, therefore, appears to be a clear afterthought and has rightly been disbelieved by the learned trial Court. 10.3. It is equally well settled that the testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded merely because of their official status. Their evidence is required to be appreciated on the same parameters as that of any other witness and cannot be viewed with suspicion solely because they belong to the police force. Unless the defence is able to establish any animosity, ulterior motive, bias or previous enmity on the part of the official witnesses against the accused, their testimony cannot be rejected merely on account of their official designation. Indeed, the evidence of official witnesses stands on the same footing as that of any independent witness and is entitled to equal evidentiary weight. 10.4. The alleged contradictions and discrepancies highlighted by learned counsel are also inconsequential. A careful examination of the evidence reveals that the so-called contradictions pertain merely to peripheral aspects, such as the precise time at which the police party departed from the police station, reached the place of occurrence, intercepted the accused, remained at the spot, and thereafter returned to the police station. Such discrepancies are natural and inevitable, particularly when witnesses depose after a considerable lapse of time. Human memory is not infallible, and truthful witnesses cannot be expected to possess photographic recollection of every minute detail. Police officials, who routinely participate in numerous investigations of a similar nature, are GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.29 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2304-SB-2004 (O&M) -:10:- naturally susceptible to minor variations regarding timelines and other trivial particulars. Such discrepancies, far from undermining the prosecution case, rather lend assurance to the truthfulness of the witnesses by ruling out any possibility of a tutored or rehearsed version. Since these inconsistencies do not strike at the substratum of the prosecution case, they have rightly been ignored by the learned trial Court. 10.5. Learned counsel has lastly contended that the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in forwarding the sample parcel to the Forensic Science Laboratory. According to him, although the sample ought to have been dispatched within 72 hours, it was actually forwarded only after a delay of ten days, thereby casting a serious doubt upon the sanctity of the prosecution case. In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgments of this Court in Kashmir Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), Malkiat Singh @ Kala vs. State of Punjab, 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 353, and Arjun Singh @ Marra vs. State of Punjab (supra), wherein it was observed that unexplained delay in forwarding the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory may, in appropriate cases, create doubt regarding the integrity of the seized contraband. 10.6. Undoubtedly, in the present case, the sample parcel was dispatched to the Forensic Science Laboratory after a period of ten days, and the record does not presently disclose any explanation for such delay. The legal effect and evidentiary consequences of the said delay, however, require independent consideration in the light of the entire prosecution evidence, the chain of custody established on record, and the settled principles governing the preservation and transmission of seized narcotic samples. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.29 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2304-SB-2004 (O&M) -:11:- 11. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant regarding the delay of ten days in forwarding the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory does not merit acceptance. Mere delay in dispatching the sample, by itself, is not sufficient to cast a cloud of suspicion over the prosecution case, particularly when the prosecution has succeeded in establishing, through cogent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence, that the sample, upon its receipt in the Forensic Science Laboratory, was found bearing intact and untampered seals. The integrity of the seal having remained wholly preserved throughout the chain of custody conclusively rules out any possibility of tampering with the case property. Consequently, no prejudice can be said to have been occasioned to the appellant merely on account of the delay in forwarding the sample. In this regard, reliance may aptly be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab, 2008 INSC 950, wherein it was categorically held that even a delay of approximately forty days in sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner does not, ipso facto, vitiate the prosecution case in the absence of any evidence indicating tampering with the sample or breach in the chain of custody. Furthermore case property when produced during trial not having legible seal or case detail is not mentioned. It is settled position that production of case property has corroborative value only. In this case when sample reached lab, seals were intact. So ruling out any tampering with case property. 12. Equally devoid of substance is the contention regarding the alleged non-compliance with Section 55 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It is now well settled that the provisions of Section 55 are directory in nature and not mandatory. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.29 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2304-SB-2004 (O&M) -:12:- Consequently, every procedural deviation, unless shown to have caused prejudice to the accused or resulted in tampering with the case property, cannot invalidate the recovery or the consequential trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardip Singh (supra) has unequivocally held that non- compliance with Section 55 of the NDPS Act does not, by itself, render the prosecution case unsustainable. In the present case, the prosecution has successfully established the recovery of commercial quantity of charas from the conscious possession of the appellant through trustworthy and convincing evidence. The learned trial Court has meticulously examined every contention advanced on behalf of the appellant and has returned well-reasoned findings based upon a proper, legal and comprehensive appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. No perversity, arbitrariness, misreading of evidence or patent illegality has been pointed out which may warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Rather, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are fully supported by the material on record and call for no interference. DW-1 is a colleague of appellant as appellant is member Panchayat whereas DW-1 Sarpanch of Panchayat. So his having affinity cannot be ruled out. There is no material on record that Panchayat passed any resolution or having taken up matter of implication of appellant in this case with authority. In such circumstances his testimony was rightly disbelieved. 13. It is equally pertinent to note that the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court is the minimum sentence statutorily prescribed for the offence involving possession of commercial quantity of contraband under the provisions of the NDPS Act. In the absence of any mitigating GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.29 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2304-SB-2004 (O&M) -:13:- circumstance warranting judicial indulgence, this Court finds no justification either to interfere with the conviction or to reduce the sentence awarded. The impugned judgment of conviction and the consequential order of sentence, therefore, deserve to be affirmed in their entirety. 14. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant was enlarged on bail pursuant to the order dated 06.05.2008 passed by this Court. In view of the dismissal of the present appeal and affirmation of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant is directed to surrender before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned forthwith, and in any event within a period of two weeks from the date of this judgment. Failing such surrender, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall take all necessary coercive steps to secure the appellant's presence and ensure execution of the remaining sentence strictly in accordance with law. 15. Consequent upon the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or connected with the present proceedings, shall stand disposed of by necessary implication. In light of the conclusions reached herein, no separate or independent orders are required in respect of such applications, as their determination has become wholly infructuous and academic. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 29.072026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.29 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document