Chandigarh, Dec. 26 -- Twenty-two years after the incident was reported, the Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has upheld the conviction of two city cops found drunk on PCR duty near Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) in January 2003. The court of justice Surya Pratap Singh, while dismissing the appeal by the two cops, said that there is no justified ground for interference and indulgence. Hence, the same is dismissed. The court termed the revision petition devoid of merit and added that it deserves dismissal. The FIR was registered on January 30, 2003, at the Sector-11 police station under Section 68 of the Excise Act after the then deputy superintendent of police (DSP) Om Parkash found during a spot visit at night that two cops - head constable Rajinder Singh and constable Harvant Singh - who were on PCR duty, were under the influence of liquor. The DSP had conducted the spot visit after receiving a wireless message at the PGI police post, informing that the PCR cops were under the influence of liquor. A glass emanating the smell of alcohol and a bottle containing 180 ML of liquor, were also recovered from the vehicle, as per the prosecution. The trial court convicted the duo on January 14, 2006, but released them on probation with an undertaking to be on good behaviour. A probation is when a court lets a convicted offender stay in the community instead of prison on certain conditions. However, the duo filed an appeal before the sessions court, which upheld the conviction in February 2009. It was against this order that they had moved the HC, the same year. In HC, they had argued that the prosecution story was inconsistent, unreliable and contradictory. There were no independent witnesses to support the prosecution case, and that otherwise also, for the alleged act of the petitioners, only departmental action could have been taken. On the other hand, UT's counsel had told the court that the petitioners were released on probation and in fact, the punishment awarded to them was already on the lower side. While dealing with the contention that there was no independent witness, the court referred to a SC judgment wherein it was stated that there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. "..ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses and that, if the testimony of the police officer is found reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same," the SC had said. The court also referred to another SC judgment wherein it was ruled that when a police officer gives evidence in court, it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable, through cross-examination of witnesses by the accused. Dismissing the plea, the court said that after examining facts of the case, it transpires that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was "consistent and sufficient to inspire confidence"....