JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the acquittal passed by learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, directing acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the `accused) by setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 1993. The trial Court had convicted the respondent for offences punishable under Section 8(c) and 15 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the `Act) and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of rupees one lakh with default stipulation.

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

On the basis of secret information Sri Naseem Ahmad, an Inspector of Narcotics Department along with other officials raided the house of the respondent on 20.11.1992 at about 8.00 a.m. in village Dadari Jamalpur. The house of the respondent was searched and from his house 29 bags containing poppy straws were recovered. The respondent could not explain legal possession of poppy straws weighing 309 kgs. The respondent was arrested and after investigation charge sheet was submitted against him. The respondent denied the possession and ownership of the property in question and claimed trial.

3. The trial Court found the evidence adduced to be clear and cogent and directed conviction and imposed sentence as afore-noted. In appeal, the High Court directed acquittal by a practically non-reasoned order holding that there was non- compliance of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the Act. It was noted that the Narcotics Department has given licence to the father of the respondent for cultivation of opium and if there had been recovery of poppy straws it might be relatable to the ownership of father of the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court had relied upon the confession of the accused respondent and the grounds on which the High Court directed acquittal are (i) non examination of independent witnesses; (ii) lack of evidence to show exclusive ownership; and (iii) the alleged non compliance of Sections 42(2) and 50 of the Act.

5. It is pointed out that Section 50 is not applicable to the case. Additionally, under Section 57 secret information has to be sent and the particulars of seizure and arrest have to be sent. The records if asked for could have been produced. In the instant case there is no evidence led or not even any question was asked about absence of records. In the alternative, the inspector was a Gazetted Officer and, therefore, even if it is conceded for the sake of argument that there is any incorrect reference, the acts are covered under Section 41 and not under Section 42.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the confessional statement could not have been relied upon. The statement was recorded by PW-2 and by the investigating officer (PW-6) on 20.11.1992. There could not have been any recording of statement by PW-6 as he was entrusted with investigation on 3.12.1992. It is pointed out that the investigating officer was not a Gazetted Officer. Since authorization was obtained Section 57 comes into play. It is pointed out that there is licence of the father also. Therefore, the High Courts order does not suffer from any infirmity.

7. Section 2(xv) and Section 2(xviii) define "opium and "poppy straws" respectively. It is the stand of the respondent that since there was licence of opium, obviously there is presumption that there was licence of poppy straws. As a matter of fact the High Court did not direct acquittal on the ground that there was licence for poppy straws also. The evidence on record clearly shows that the expressions "opium" and "poppy straws" are not interchangeable as contended by learned counsel for the respondent, as Section 2(xiv) clearly makes out a distinction between opium and poppy straws. So far as the role of PW-6 is concerned,