1. Appellant-Banshidhar Maharana has preferred this appeal from jail against his conviction under S. 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years and alp to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000,00.00 (one lac), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.

2. Earlier shri Binod Kumar No. 1, advocate, was appearing in this appeal as amicus curiae by order dated 30-11-1989 but later on Shri Satya Narain Mishra, Advocate was permitted to appear who has argued the case on behalf of the appellant amicus curiae.

3. The prosecution case in short is that on 27-8-1986 at about 9.30 a.m. a bus bearing registration No. BHF-3611 was checked in village Minapur at Sheohar Sitamarhi road by the preventive staff of the Custom Department consisting of P. K. Sharma, Inspector Customs, Muzaffarpur (P.W. 3) with six others and 4 Kgs. 200 gms. of opium (of third country origin) valued at Rs. 16,800.00, was recovered from the brief case carried by the appellant. On demand by the appellant, could not produce any required documents or importation and legal possession of the said opium. A seizure list was prepared of the brief case and opium in the presence of the bus staff, namely, Haribans Rai, driver and Binod Kumar conductor of the said bus BHF 3611. The appellant gave his statement that the owner of the opium were Banmalidas Potedar and Ramdhani Singh. After the arrest, the appellant was forwarded to the Presiding Officer, Economic Offences, Muzaffarpur along with the seized articles and also a complaint for taking cognizance and thereafter, the prosecution had been started against the appellant.

4. The appellant denied the prosecution case. No witness in defence has been examined.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has produced seven witnesses. P.W. 1 is Ram Pravesh Das, Inspector Customs who had supported the case about the checking, recovery and seizure in his presence. He has also proved the seizure list and recording of the statement of the accused. P.W. 2 Indradeo Yadav, Head Constable, had been tendered for cross-examination. P.W. 3 Pramod Kumar Sharma, Inspector of Customs (complainant) has also supported the case of the prosecution. P.W. 4 Balwant Sing is the Customs Superintendent who has also supported the case of the prosecution. P. Ws. 5 and 6 Ramjanam Singh and Ramjit Ram, the two constables, have been tendered. P.W. 7 Reoti Raman Sinha, Superintendent of Customs too has supported the case of the prosecution.

6. The learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant after considering the entire material on the record as said above.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant saying that the evidence of the witnesses of the police department, should not be believed as they are interested in the success of the case and further, no independent witness has been examined nor is there any explanation as to why independent witnesses could not be examined. It was also said that the two members of the staff of the bus, namely, driver and conductor, have not been examined nor the seizure-list has been proved. It was also said that the statement said to have been given by the appellant about the recovery, could not be relied on. To appreciate these contentions, the evidence produced by the prosecution in this case against the appellant, will have to be scrutinised with care and caution.

8. P.W. 3 Pramod Kumar Sharma is the Inspector. He has said that on 27-8-1986, he along with one Superintendent, two inspectors and five constables, one driver went to Sheohar-Sitamarhi road and on checking bus No. BHF 3611, from beneath the seat on which the appellant was sitting, a brief case was recovered which contained 4 kgs. 200 gms. of opium and on enquiry, the appellant said that the said brief case was his brief case. The appellant himself opened the brief case by