(1.) The appellants - Amarjit Singh and Prem Prakash have been convicted of offences punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act vide judgment dated May 25, 1992, by an Additional Sessons Judge, Delhi, and Amarjit Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years more. The appellant- Prem Prakash, however, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.l,00,000.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year more. They have filed the present appeal challenging their convictions and sentences.
(2.) Facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants, in breif, are that a secret informer on May 8, 1987, had given the information to the Special Staff of Morris Nagar area that a Sikh gentleman would be bringing con- traband in a Jonga Jeep of gray colour on outer ring road for going to Mukherjee Nagar. A raiding party was organized by the Special Staff which comprised of Sub-Inspectors Data Ram, Jagram, Mohan Singh, Asstt. Sub-Inspectors Sujan Singh, Hari Singh, Head Constables Ramesh Kumar, Sarup Singh, Dalel Singh and Constables Nichhiter Singh, Dharamvir Singh, Karan Singh, Ranbir Singh and Brahm Pal Singh. The raiding party was headed by Inspector Raghubansh Singh Dhaiya. After joining a public witness Ashok Kumar the raiding party laid a picket at about 1.30 PM near Pumping Station Najafgarh Lane in Mukherjee Marg. At about 2.30 PM a Jonga Jeep was found coming which bore the registration No.DHD 5004 and was being driven by Amarjit Singh while Prem Prakash was sitting in the said Jeep and the said Jeep was apprehended and an offer was made to both the appellants that if they wanted the search of the jeep as well as of the persons of the appellants could be carried out in presence of a gazetted officer and on the appellants declining the said offer, the Jeep was searched and it was found to contain nine polythene bags of white colour containing charas concealed in the cavity * under the floor of the Jeep and on weighment the bags were found to contain 90 kgs of charas. Samples were taken from each of the nine bags. The samples as well as the remaining charas were converted into separate parcels and they were duly sealed with the seals of the SHO as well as of the Sub- Inspector Mohan Singh. The case was registered against the appellants and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana and thereafter samples were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (for short 'CFSL') and on receipt of the report from the CFSL showing that the samples were of charas, the case was brought in court against the appellants.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that no evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove beyond shadow of reasonable doubts that the samples which were allegedly taken at the spot and were duly sealed were the same samples which had been got analysed from the expert of the CFSL. He has urged that there is no evidence to show that CFSL form which was alleged to have been filled in at the spot on which the specimen of the two seals were affixed had been at all deposited in the Malkhana and had at any time been taken by the constable who took the samples to the CFSL for handing over the same to the Experts of CFSL to enable them to tally the seals affixed on the particular CFSL form with the seals appearing on the parcels of samples. So, it is urged that there is no evidence of the prosecution to show that the commodity recovered from the appellants was, in fact, Charas. He has urged that possibility of the samples being tampered with in the present case cannot be completely overlooked inasmuch as the link evidence which could complete the chain that the samples were duly sealed at the spot and that the same had reached the Malkhana of the Police Station and had also reached untampered the Experts of CFSL.