MRIDULA MISHRA and DHARNIDHAR JHA JJ.

1. The solitary appellant, Akloo Miya @ Akloo Mian, was put on trial in Trial No. 23 of 2006, before the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Bettiah (West Champaran) on charges under sections 20 (c) and 22 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (N.D.P.S. Act for short) and vide judgment dated 11.11.2009, was held guilty of committing the two offences and was, accordingly, convicted. After hearing the appellant of sentence on 12.11.2009, the learned Trial Judge directed the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years on each of the above, counts as also to pay fine of Rs. One lac under either of the sections of the N.D.P.S. Act and in default to pay the fine, was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The appellant appeals against the above order of conviction and sentence, passed against him.

3. The prosecution case is contained in the self-statement of S.I., Binay Kumar, the then Officer Incharge, Chanpatia Police Station (RW. 4), who stated that he got some secret information that a person was about to leave Chanpatia Railway Station Chowk with some narcotic substance, who had traveled by train from outside. RW. 4, entered the above secret information into the station diary and informed his superior Officer, i.e., SDPO, Sadar and as per his direction left the Police Station along with the Circle Inspector of Police, namely, Shyam Kishore Prasad (RW. 11); S.I. Jaglal Ram (RW. 10); ASI Amarendra Bahadur Singh (RW. 9); Vishwanath Ram (RW. 8); Constable, Prem Chandra Paswan (RW. 6); Bhagrasan Sah (RW. 7) and Home Guard No. 5757, Sugriv Pandey, the Driver of the Police Jeep for verifying the above information at Railway Station Chowk, Chanpatia.

4. The informant reached Railway Station Chowk at 11.30 a.m. and when he was in front of a sweetmeat shop of one Bharath Sah, he found that a person seeing the Police Jeep started running away. The informant stated that the suspect was chased and caught and when the reason for running away was asked from the suspected person, he could not give any satisfactory replies. RW. 4, thereafter, searched the person of the apprehended man in presence of Rajendra Sah (not examined) and Raju Thakur, RW. 2. It was found that the man had tied around his belly something and had covered the same with his cloths and, lastly, it was found out to be four polythene packets, containing some Charas like substance. The apprehended person was questioned on his possession, but again he could not give satisfactory replies nor could he produce any document authorizing the possession of the same. It was this appellant who was the person caught and, accordingly, he was formally arrested and the seizure memo was prepared in presence of the seizure list witnesses, RW. 2 and Rajendra Sah (not examined). The copy of the seizure memo, as per the written report (exhibit 2) was handed over to the appellant. As may appear from the evidence of RW. 4, Binay Kumar and RW. 10, SI Jaglal Ram the Investigating Officer of the case, the written report was filed , at the Police Station where the apprehended accused was brought along with the seized article and on that basis the FIR of the case (exhibit 4) was drawn up, entrusting the investigation to P.W. 10, SI, Jaglal Ram.

5. P.W. 10, Jaglal Ram, after taking the charge of the investigation, examined the witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence and drew the sample from the contraband article and sent the same for chemical analysis to FSL, Muzaffapur. It may appear from the evidence of P.W. 10 that he could not receive the report finally from the FSL, but still sent the present appellant up for his trial, which ultimately ended in the conviction of the appellant.

6. We were taken through the evidence of witnesses by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. It was contended by making reference to the evidence mainly