2. Feeling aggrieved and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 881/2012, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein – original accused No.1 and has confirmed the Judgment and Order of Conviction and Sentence passed by the learned Special Court convicting the accused – appellant no.1 for the offence under Section  20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) and sentencing him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/­, in default, to undergo further one year’s rigorous imprisonment, original accused no.1 has preferred the present appeal.

8.2 Having gone through the entire evidence on record and the findings recorded by the courts below, we are of the opinion that in   the   present   case   the prosecution   has   been   successful   in proving the case against the accused by examining the witnesses PW3, PW4, PW5, PW7 and PW8.  It is true that all the aforesaid witnesses are police officials and two independent witnesses who were panchnama witnesses had turned hostile.  However, all the aforesaid   police witnesses   are   found   to   be   reliable   and trustworthy.   All of them have been thoroughly cross­examined by the defence.  There is no allegation of any enmity between the police witnesses and the accused.   No such defence has been taken in the statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C.  There is no law that the evidence of police officials, unless supported by independent evidence, is to be discarded and/or unworthy of acceptance.

It is settled law that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot   be   rejected on   the   ground   of   non­corroboration   by independent witness.   As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non­examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case, [see Pardeep Kumar (supra)].

Applying the law laid down by this Court on the evidence of police officials/police witnesses to the facts of the case in hand, referred   to   hereinabove, we   are   of the   opinion   as   the   police witnesses are found to be reliable and trustworthy, no error has been   committed   by   both   the   courts   below   in   convicting   the accused relying upon the deposition of the police officials.

9.2. It has been established and proved that the samples which were seized and sealed were sent to the FSL. From the record, it establishes that the recovery from Rizwan Khan was marked as ‘B1’ and ‘B2’ and   the   treasury   record   also   that the   narcotic substances recovered from Rizwan Khan were shown as ‘B1’ and ‘B2’. There seems to be some clerical error in numbering of sample in memorandum of Superintendent of Police and the same was mentioned as ‘A1’. However, it has been established and proved that the samples which were seized and sealed from Rizwan were sent to the FSL. The aforesaid aspect has been dealt   with   by   the learned   Special   Court in its judgment in paragraphs 25 and 26.

10. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that as PW4 – J.K. Sen who recorded the FIR, he himself was the investigating officer and   therefore the trial   is   vitiated   is concerned, it is required to be noted that initially learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused made the above submission relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal (supra).  However, in view of the recent decision of this Court in the case of Mukesh Singh (supra) overruling the decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal (supra), learned counsel appearing for   the   accused   has   not   pressed   the   above   ground.  Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present case the aforesaid issue does not arise as after the FIR was recorded by Shri   J.K.   Sen,   PW4,   thereafter   the   case   was   investigated   by Ashish Shukla, PW5.  Therefore, on facts, both the complainant and the investigating officer were different.

11. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that the ownership of the   motor   cycle   (vehicle)   has   not   been established   and   proved   and/or that   the   vehicle   has   not   be recovered is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the present case the appellant and the other accused persons were found on the spot with the contraband articles in the vehicle. To prove the case under the NDPS Act, the ownership of the vehicle is not required to be established and proved. It is enough to establish and prove that the contraband articles were found from the   accused   from   the   vehicle   purchased   by   the   accused. Ownership of the vehicle is immaterial.  What is required to be established and proved is the recovery of the contraband articles and   the   commission   of   an offence   under   the   NDPS   Act? Therefore, merely because of the ownership of the vehicle is not established   and   proved and/or the vehicle is not recovered subsequently, trial is not vitiated, while the prosecution has been successful   in proving and establishing the recovery   of   the contraband articles from the accused on the spot.