The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroboration by independent witnesses in cases of raid and seizure of contraband articles, as well as the importance of following the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act in conducting such operations.

P.G. M PATIL, J.

1. The appellant-accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/21.09.2016 passed by the Special Judge and Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Special Case (NDPS) No.36/2016 (Split up Case from Special Case (NDPS) No.41/2013) has filed this appeal.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial court has convicted appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and in default to pay fine amount, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to, as per their ranking before the trial Court.

4. The appellant was tried by the Trial Court on the charge of commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Gandhi Gunj Police in Crime No.158/2013 of their police station.

5. The case of the prosecution in brief are as follows:

On 10.09.2013 at 3.00 p.m. PW.9 the Circle Inspector of Police, Bidar received credible information of illegal transportation of ganja. Thereafter, himself along with panchas and his staff conducted raid on auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-38/2010 which was parked near New Adarsh Colony on Chidri Ring Road and apprehended accused Nos.1 to 3. On search of auto rickshaw, two gunny bags containing ganja were found. On informing accused Nos.1 to 3 about their right of being searched in the presence of Magistrate/Gazetted Officer, with their consent conducted their personal search. He secured witness with weighing scale. The ganja found in the first bag weighed 9kg and in the second bag weighed 12 kg. On drawing sample from each of them, the Police Officer seized the samples, ganja and the auto-rickshaw under the Mahazar Ex.P1. Then he returned to the police station along with seized articles and the accused, produced them before SHO along with his report. On the basis of such report, SHO registered FIR Ex.P3, conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet.

6. The appellant-accused herein who was arrayed as accused No.2 in the original proceedings remained absconding and thereafter case against him was split up from the original Special Case (NDPS) No.41/2013. The trial Court proceeded against accused-Mohd. Raisuddin and Mohd. Naseer Khan in the said case and after examination of witnesses, after examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and after hearing both the parties, recorded conviction against accused in the said case, which was subject matter of Criminal Appeal No.200138/2016. The said appeal was allowed by this Court on 13.07.2018. However, the trial Court in the present case on the basis of the evidence recorded de novo trial convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2.00 lakhs with default cause.

7. The appellant-accused being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has filed this appeal and has urged in his appeal memo that, the trial Court has not passed the judgment on the proper appreciation of evidence on record and only on the basis of examination-in-chief of the witnesses, the appellant has been convicted. The trial Court believing the evidence of PW.9, who is complainant, has convicted the accused, whereas conduct of PW.9 in conducting raid is not free for suspicion. It is very strange that PW.9 after receiving credible information did not ask any of his staff attached to his police station to accompany him during raid. The trial Court has not considered the fact that the unless and until there is evidence th