Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh S/O Kashmir Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 25 November, 2008
Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007
Date of Decision : 25.11.2008
1. Manjit Singh S/o Kashmir Singh, ...Appellants
R/o Ladhuke, Tehsil Fazilka.
2. Resham Singh S/o Hardit Singh,
R/o Ladhuke, Tehsil Fazilka.
Versus
The State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
SHAM SUNDER, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 7.2.2007, and the order of sentence dated 8.2.2007, rendered by the Special Judge, Ferozepur, vide which he convicted the accused (now appellants), for the offence, punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'the Act' only) and sentenced them, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac each, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 2 period of 1 year each, for having been found in possession of 4 kgs. 255 grams Heroin, without any permit or licence. The trial Court, however, acquitted Ram Singh, Pehalwan Singh, Gurdip Singh, and Jagir Singh, accused.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 18.10.2003, at about 1505 hours, when Gate Guards, comprising Indra Ram, HC, No.87132942 and Raj Kumar, CT, No.01877113 of F Copy. 181 Battalion of BSF, were present at B.S.Fence Gate No.242 of BOP GG-I, when a tractor bearing No.PB- 22A-7382, make Mahindra, driven by Resham Singh, accused, who was accompanied by Manjit Singh, accused, both residents of village Ladhuke, came from the side of Fencing Gate. Indra Ram, HC and Raj Kumar, Constable, checked the tractor, and found white substance, contained in four packets, from inside the bumper of the tractor. Indra Ram, HC, accordingly informed the company Head Quarter. On receipt of this information, H.S.Garcha, Commandant, and C.S.Sharma, Company Commander, reached the spot, and got opened the bumper of the tractor, which led to the recovery of four packets of heroin. On the same day, Jaswinder Singh, SI, received a telephonic call, from H.S.Garcha, that heroin was recovered from the border, and the BSF authorities, were to search the houses of the accused. Jaswinder Singh, SI, alongwith other police officials, as also the BSF personnel, cardoned off village Ladhuke. The police officials and BSF personnel, searched the houses of Manjit Singh and Resham Singh. 5 grams of heroin was recovered therefrom. On the next day, when Jaswinder Singh, SI, was present in the Police Station, Chander Shekhar Sharma, Deputy Commandant of 181 Battalion, produced before him, four packets of Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 3 heroin, alongwith Manjit Singh and Resham Singh, accused. He also produced a tractor toed with disk plough, before him. Three samples of ten grams each, from each of the packets, were taken out. The remaining heroin was weighed. One packet was found containing 1 Kg. 30 grams heroin. The second packet was found containing 1 kg. 25 grams heroin. The third packet was found containing 1 kg. 35 grams heroin, and the fourth packet was found containing 1 kg. 40 grams heroin. A packet containing 5 grams heroin, was also produced. The packets, containing the remaining heroin, and the samples, were converted into parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession. The sample impression of the seals was prepared. Swarandip Singh, DSP, who was present, in the Police Station, in connection with inspection, also affixed his own seal, on the case property, and the sample parcels. Jaswinder Singh, SI, took the entire case property, and the sample parcels, vide memo Ex.P2, attested by the witnesses. The tractor alongwith plough, was also taken into possession. On personal search, nothing was recovered, regarding which personal search memo, Ex.P4, was prepared. The place of recovery was inspected by Jaswinder Singh, SI, and rough site plan was prepared. Before inspecting the place of recovery, the FIR was registered. The accused were arrested. During the course of interrogation, it was revealed that consignment of heroin was obtained, by the accused, from Pakistan, and cavity in the tractor was created, with the help of Gurdip Singh S/o Kashmir Singh, brother of Manjit Singh, accused. It was further revealed that the consignment was required to be delivered to Jagir Singh S/o Jagtar Singh of Sirsa area, their active accomplice in the smuggling. They alongwith Pehalwan Singh and Ram Singh, brothers of Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 4 Manjit Singh, accused, were also arrested. After the completion of investigation, all the accused were challaned.
3. On their appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section 22 of the Act, was framed against Manjit Singh and Resham Singh, whereas, charge under Section 22 read with Section 29 of the Act, was framed against Ram Singh, Pehalwan Singh, Gurdip Singh and Jagir Singh, accused, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.
4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Tilak Raj, Constable (PW-1), who was handed over 4 sample parcels, weighing ten grams each, duly sealed, alongwith sample seal, for depositing the same, in the office of the Chemical Examiner, Chandigarh, who deposited the same, with seals intact on 23.10.2003, in the laboratory, and also deposed that neither the same was tampered by him, nor did he allow anybody to tamper with the same, till the same remained in his custody, Subhash Arora, Registration Clerk, office of the Tehsildar, Fazilka (PW-2), who proved the registration certificate of tractor No.PB-22-A-7382, which was registered by the SDM-cum-Registering Authority Motor Vehicle, Fazilka, in the name of Hardit Singh S/o Bhola Singh, Puran Singh, ASI, (PW-3), who was posted, at the relevant time, in Police Station Sadar, Fazilka, and associated with Jaswinder Singh, SI, in the investigation, H.S.Garcha, Commandant, BSF, 21 Battalion (PW-4), who received the information from Indra Ram, HC, that they had intercepted a tractor, being driven by Resham Singh alongwith Manjit Singh, his acomplice, and on opening the bumper of the tractor, 4 packets of white substance, Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 5 which was heroin, were recovered, Indra Ram, HC (PW-5), who alongwith his colleague, intercepted the tractor, alongwith ploughing disc, wherefrom the heroin was recovered, Chander Shekhar Sharma, Asstt. Commandant (PW-6), who was posted as Company Commander F- Company 181 Battalion, at BOP GG-I, at the relevant time, who reached the spot, and saw that the tractor had already been intercepted by Indra Ram, HC, and his colleague, and on opening the bumper thereof, four packets, containing heroin, were recovered, Jaswinder Singh, SI (PW-7), who was the SHO P.S. Sadar, Fazilka, the Investigating Officer, who deposed with regard to the investigation, and preparation of the various memos, as also with regard to the production of packets, containing heroin, before him, by Chander Shekhar Sharma, which had been recovered from the accused, when one of them was driver of the tractor, and the other was his accomplice, and Sawarandip Singh, DSP (PW-8), who was present in Police Station Sadar, Fazilka, when the packets were produced by Chander Shekhar Sharma, before Jaswinder Singh, SI, and in whose presence, the proceedings were conducted. Thereafter, the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.
5. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded, and they were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication.
5-A. Manjit Singh, accused, in his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stated that he was innocent. It was further stated by him, that his land is situated behind the border of India, from where the border of Pakistan is at a distance of 200 yards. He further stated that there is no Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 6 gate, or fencing on the border of Pakistan. He further stated that there is sufficient land, which is not being cultivated. He further stated that wild grass and wild growth adjacent to his land, had come up. He further stated that the BSF officials detected the alleged heroin from the abandoned wild growth and wild grass. He further stated that, on the basis of suspicion, the alleged recovery had been placted against him, and his other co-accused. He further stated that no recovery was effected from the tractor.
5-B. Resham Singh, accused, in his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., also took up the same plea, as was taken up, by Manjit Singh, accused.
5-C. Ram Singh, Pehalwan Singh, Gurdip Singh and Jagir Singh, accused, in their statements, stated that they were falsely implicated, in the instant case, being the relative of Resham Singh and Manjit Singh. It was further stated by them, that no incriminating article was recovered from them.
5-D. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence, in their defence.
6. After hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced Resham Singh and Manjit Singh, accused, whereas, acquitted Ram Singh, Pehalwan Singh, Gurdip Singh and Jagir Singh, accused, as stated hereinbefore.
7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by Manjit Singh and Resham Singh, appellants.
Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 7
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9 The Counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, submitted that the conscious possession of the appellants, in relation to the contraband, was not proved. He further submitted that, as per the prosecution story, the heroin was allegedly recovered from inside the bumper of the tractor. He further submitted that both the appellants, could not be said to have any knowledge, with regard to the said contraband. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Resham Singh, accused, was driving the tractor, whereas, Manjit Singh, accused, was sitting on the mudguard thereof. The tractor was not a public transport, on which Manjit Singh, had taken a lift. It was within the special means of Resham Singh and Manjit Singh, as to how the heroin, aforesaid, was found inside the bumper of the tractor. It was also within their special means of knowledge, as to wherefrom, the same, had been brought, and to which destination, the same was to be transported. They were required to explain the circumstances aforesaid. They, however, failed to explain the same. Under these circumstances, it could be said that Resham Singh and Manjit Singh, accused, were in possession of, and in control over the contraband, which was recovered from inside the bumper of the tractor. Once, the possession of the accused, and their control over the contraband, was proved, the statutory presumption, under Sections 54 and 35 of the Act, operated against them, that they were in conscious possession thereof. Thereafter, the onus shifted on to them, to rebut the statutory presumption. It was not the case of both the accused, that they Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 8 did not know, as to what was lying, under the bumper of the tractor. It was also not their case that the tractor was left by them, abandoned at some place, and somebody else might have placed the heroin, under- neath the bumper thereof, and, therefore, they were unable to know, about the same. It was not the case of the accused, that some other persons had kept the packets, containing white powder, under-neath the bumper, and they were only asked to take the same to a particular destination, for delivery to some person. It was not the case of Manjit Singh, accused, tht he being friendly to Resham Singh, accused, had no transport, to reach his village, and thus, sat on the mud-guard of the tractor, but did not know what was lying under-neath the bumper of the tractor. The tractor, as per the evidence, belongs to the father of Resham Singh, accused, namely Hardit Singh. It was not the case of Resham Singh, accused, that his father handed over the tractor to him, and he did not know, as to what was kept by him, under-neath the bumper. The plea of the accused was only of false implication. The accused, miserably, failed to rebut the statutory presumption, under Sections 54 and 35 of the Act. In these circumstances, the trial Court was right, in holding that they were in conscious possession of the contraband. Section 54 of the Act ibid reads as under :-
"Presumption from possession of illicit articles:- In trials under this Act, it may be presumed, unless and until the contrary is proved, that the accused has committed an offence under this Act, in respect of:-
a) any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance;Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 9
b) any opium poppy, cannabis plant or coca plant growing on any land which he has cultivated;
c) any apparatus specially designed or any group of utensils specially adopted for the manufacture of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controller substance; or
d) any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance, or any residue left of the materials from which any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance has been manufactured, for the possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily."
9-A. Section 35 which relates to the presumption of culpable mental state, is extracted as under :-
"Presumption of culpable mental state:- (1) In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 10
Explanation:- In this section "culpable mental state"
includes intention, motive knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
(2) For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability."
9-B. From the conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 54 and 35, referred to hereinbefore, it becomes abundantly clear, that once an accused, is found to be in possession of a contraband, he is presumed to have committed the offence, under the relevant provisions of the Act, until the contrary is proved. According to Section 35 of the Act ibid, the Court shall presume the existence of mental state, for the commission of an offence, and it is for the accused to prove otherwise. In Madan Lal and another Vs. State of H. P. 2003 SCC (Crl.) 1664 it was held as under:-
The word "conscious" means awareness about a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended.
Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles."Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 11
10. The facts of Madan Lal's case (supra) in brief, were that accused Manjit Singh was driving the Car and the remaining four accused, were sitting therein. One steel container (dolu) in a black coloured bag, was recovered from the said Car, which contained 820 gms.
charas. All the accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, holding that they were found in conscious possession of charas, despite the fact, that one of the accused admitted his conscious possession, of the contraband. The Apex Court held that the trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion, that the accused were found in conscious possession of charas, as they had failed to explain as to how they were travelling in a Car together, which was not a public vehicle. The Apex Court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused. In Megh Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2003 (4) RCR (Criminal) 319, on 22.2.1993, three persons were found sitting, on the gunny bags, containing poppy husk. The appellant was arrested, while the other two fled. 25 bags containing poppy husk, were found, at the spot, which were seized. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, and the appeal filed by him, was also dismissed by the High Court. The Apex Court, upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant, observing that he was in conscious possession. The word 'conscious' means awareness about a particular fact. It is the state of mind, which is deliberate or intended. It was further held that possession, in a given case, need not be physical possession, but can be constructive, having power and control over the article, while the person whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power or control. In the instant case, the accused failed to explain, as to how, 4 packets, containing heroin, were found inside the Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 12 bumper of the tractor, which was being driven by Resham Singh, accused. The facts of Madan Lal's and Megh Singh's cases (supra) are similar and identical to the facts of the present case. The principle of law, laid down, in Madan Lal's and Megh Singh's cases (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. As stated above, the accused, thus, miserably failed to rebut the statutory presumption, referred to above. Thus, their conscious possession, in respect of the contraband, was proved, and, as such, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
11. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that there was a delay of 3 days, in sending the samples to the office of the Chemical Examiner, which remained unexplained, as a result whereof, it could not be said that the samples were not tampered with, until the same reached the office of the Chemical Examiner. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The mere fact that delay, in sending the samples, to the office of the Chemical Examiner, was not explained, in itself, was not sufficient, to come to the conclusion, that the sample parcels were tampered with, at any stage. In such circumstances, the Court is required to fall back upon the other evidence, produced by the prosecution, to complete the link evidence. The other evidence produced by the prosecution, has been subjected to indepth scrutiny, and, as stated above, it has been found to be cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy. From the other evidence, produced by the prosecution, it was proved that none tampered with the sample parcels, until the same reached the Laboratory. Above all, there is report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.20, which clearly proves that the Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 13 seals on the samples, were found intact, and agreed with the specimen seals sent. The report of the Chemical Examiner, is per-se admissible into evidence, in its entirety, as per the provisions of Section 293 Cr.P.C. The delay, in sending the samples, to the office of the Chemical Examiner, therefore, did not prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. Had no other evidence, been produced, by the prosecution, to prove that the sample parcels, remained untampered with, until the same reached the office of the Chemical Examiner, the matter would have been different. In State of Orissa Vs. Kanduri Sahoo 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 196 (S.C.), it was held that mere delay in sending the sample to the Laboratory is not fatal, where there is evidence that the seized articles remained in safe custody. In Narinder Singh @ Nindi Vs. State of Punjab 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 343, which was a case, relating to the recovery of 4 Kgs. of opium, the samples were sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner, after 23 days. All the samples were intact. In these circumstances, it was held that, in the face of the other cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy evidence, produced by the prosecution, to prove the completion of link evidence, it could not be held that the possibility of tampering with the samples, could not be ruled out. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Therefore, in the instant case, unexplained delay of 3 days, in sending the samples to the office of the Chemical Examiner, did not at all matter much. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
12. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that no Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 14 independent witness, was joined, or examined, despite availability. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. There is nothing, on the record, that at the time, when the tractor was intercepted by Indra Ram, HC, alongwith his colleague, and 4 packets, containing white powder, were found, under- neath the bumper of the tractor, any independent witness was available, but was not joined. In the absence of corroboration, through an independent source, to the evidence of the official witnesses, the prosecution case cannot be distrusted and disbelieved. In the face of the evidence of the official witnesses only, the Court is required to scrutinize the same, carefully and cautiously. After careful and cautious scrutiny, if the Court comes to the conclusion, that the same does not suffer from any serious infirmity, the same can be believed. The evidence of the official witnesses, in the instant case, has been subjected to indepth scrutiny, and nothing came to the fore, which may go to discredit the same. In Akmal Ahmed Vs. State of Delhi, 1999(2) RCC 297 (S.C.), it was held that, it is now well-settled, that the evidence of search or seizure, made by the police, will not become vitiated, solely for the reason that the same was not supported by an independent witness. In State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil (2000)I S.C.C. 748, it was held as under:-
"It is an archaic notion that actions of the Police officer, should be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the Police. At any rate, the Court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law, the presumption Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 15 should be the other way round. The official acts of the Police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the Legislature."
13. In Appa Bai and another Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1988 S.C. 696, it was held that the prosecution story cannot be thrown out, on the ground, that an independent witness had not been examined, by the prosecution. It was further held, in the said authority, that the civilized people, are generally insensitive, when a crime is committed, even in their presence, and they withdraw from the victims' side, and from the side of the vigilant. They keep themselves away from the Courts, unless it is inevitable. Moreover, they think the crime like a civil dispute, between two individuals, and do not involve themselves, in it. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, mere non-joining of an independent witness, when the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has been held to be cogent, convincing, creditworthy, and reliable, and there was no reason, on their part, to falsely implicate the accused, no doubt, is cast on the prosecution story. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
14. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the mandatory provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C., were not complied with, at the time of raiding the house of the accused. It may be stated here, that as soon as the tractor was intercepted, and from under-neath the bumper thereof, 4 packets, containing heroin were recovered, the police was informed, as a result whereof, joint raid by the BSF personnel, and Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 16 the Police, at the house of the accused was conducted, on 18.10.2003, the date on which the recovery was effected. There was urgency in the move of the Police, and the BSF personnel, to raid the houses of the accused, to find out, as to whether, more heroin, or any other contraband, was concealed therein, or not. Had an attempt to join an independent witness been made, the chances of leakage of the move to raid the houses of the accused, would not have been ruled out, and the very purpose of the raid would have been defeated. Even otherwise, it is a matter of common knowledge that the villagers hardly come forward to become a witness in a raid, or recovery, with a view to avoid the wrath of the accused, their co-villager, and complications, which may arrive at a later stge, on account of their appearance in the Court, for evidence, from time to time. It was, under these circumstances, that no independent witness could be joined, at the time of raiding of the houses of the accused. The provisions of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., are not mandatory in nature. The search may be irregular or illegal, but the contraband recovered, in pursuance of such a search, may constitute an offence. Irregular or illegal search does not mean that the recovery effected, in pursuance thereof, if amounts to the commission of an offence, would also become illegal. At the most, on account of non-joining of two independent witnesses, from the locality, the Court is put on guard, to scrutinize the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, carefully and cautiously. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in this case, on scrutiny was found to be cogent, convincing, trustworthy, and reliable. In Sunder Singh Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1956 Supreme Court 411, two persons not belonging to the locality, had been joined, at the time of search. It was contended by the Counsel for the Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 17 appellant, that since the provisions of (Section 103 Cr.P.C. Of 1898), now Section (100(4) Cr.P.C. 1973), were not complied with, at the time of search, the search and the consequent recovery became illegal and could not be taken into consideration. Repelling the contention, it was held that assuming that the persons, who actually witnessed the search, were not respectable inhabitants of the locality, that circumstance would not invalidate the search. It would only affect the weight of the evidence, in support of search and recovery. Hence, at the highest, the irregularity in search and recovery, in so far as the terms of (Section 103 Cr.P.C. Of 1898) had not been fully complied with, would not affect the legality of the proceedings. In Puran Mal Vs. Director of Inspection (1974) 1 SCC 345, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, held that the material obtained by an illegal search, is not inadmissible into evidence, and can be acted upon, to record a conviction. In State Vs. Jasbir Singh (1996) 1 SCC 288, it was held that the evidence collected, in breach of the mandatory requirements, does not become inadmissible. The principle of law, in nut-shell, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, was to the effect, that the provisions of Section 100(4) are not mandatory, in nature, and non-compliance therewith, will not vitiate the investigation and trial. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. On account of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C., the case of the prosecution, did not become doubtful. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
15. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. Crl. Appeal No.404-SB of 2007 18
16. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not warrant any interference, and are liable to be upheld.
17. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 7.2.2007, and the order of sentence dated 8.2.2007, are upheld. If the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds, shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, shall take necessary steps, to comply with the judgment, with due promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., and submit compliance report, to this Court, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy thereof.
18. The District and Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, shall ensure that the directions are complied with, within the time frame, and the compliance report is submitted immediately thereafter.
19. The Registry shall keep track of the submission of compliance reports, and put up the papers whether the reports are received or not, within the time frame, immediately after the expiry thereof.
25.11.2008 (SHAM SUNDER) Vimal JUDGE