Present appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge dealing with the cases arising out of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘the Act’) in Spl.C.C.No.134/2013. Petitioner who was accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 5(C) of NDPS Act r/w. Section 34 of IPC and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh, in default, to undergo six months of S.I. for the offence punishable under Section 5(C) of NDPS Act. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.11.2015 is called in question in this appeal.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as follows:

a. Accused had been charged for the offence under Section 5(C) of the Act arising out of Crime No.5/12 registered by the respondent – police station. On 21.01.2012 at about 7.30 a.m., CW18 received a credible information regarding the illegal transportation of 8 bags of poppy straw (husk) in Madhusudan bus from Madanapalli to Bangalore. CW18 – PSI – Mr.Rajanna is stated to have reduced the information so received in the Station House Diary and informed the same to the Circle Inspector of Police and also to the Deputy Superintendent of Police through phone. He issued intimation to CW1 to 8 and 11 panchas and staff to participate in the raid and issued notice to panchas as per Ex.P14. CW18 was waiting in front of the station along with panchas and staff members. The bus in question was stopped and it was found out that there were plastic bags on the top of the bus. On enquiry, CW6 –conductor told that a person was transporting the said bags from Madanapalli and going to Pillaguppa factory and he is stated to have shown accused No.1 as the person who got loaded the same to the top of the bus. On enquiry, accused No.1 stated that he was going to supply the said bags to one Prakash – accused No.2. CW18 informed the accused that he has a right to be personally searched by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and the search took place in the presence of CW4 – Gazetted Officer as accused agreed to be searched by CW4.

b. On personal search, no items were found with him. They weighed the poppy straw (husk) and each bag contained an average of 1213 kgs. In all 180.450 kgs of poppy husk was seized. Out of the same, 250 grams each from all the bags were taken out separately for sample. CW18 prepared the mahazar at the spot and accused No.1 was produced along with the property to the police station and CW18 himself chose to register the case against both the accused and FIR was sent to the jurisdictional Court.

c. The statement of accused No.1 was recorded and he was produced before the Court. CW14 recorded the statements of CWs’1 to 10, 12 to 17. He sent a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police about the success of the raid. Accused No.2 was arrested on 24.01.2012 and his voluntary statement was recorded. The samples were sent to FSL through CW16 and obtained acknowledgement.

d. Both the accused have been examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They have denied the allegation made against them. Their defence is one of total denial of the allegations made against them.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial Court has not properly analyzed the oral and documentary evidence in right perspective and that wrong approach has been adopted to the real state of affairs. It is argued that the trial Court has ignored the fact that the conductor has not at all identified the accused as the person who was transporting the said incriminating materials. He has argued that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 52A and 67 of the Act have not been complied with and therefore the judgment of conviction and sentence passed is opposed to law, facts and probabilities.

4. Per contra, Sri.Rachaiah, learned HCGP has supported the judgment of conviction and sentence essentially on the ground that the perso