Mridula Mishra and Dharnidhar Jha JJ.

1. The solitary appellant Dipak Kumar was put on trial by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Patna, in Special Case No. 44 of 2007 by framing charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (N.D.P.S. Act for short) and by the judgment delivered on the 30th day of January, 2010, was found guilty of committing the said offence. After hearing the appellant on sentence on 8.2.2010, the learned Judge directed the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1.5 lac, else, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three years. The appellant has appealed against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence through the present appeal.

2. P.W. 2, informant Krishna Kumar Singh addressed his written report to the learned Special Judge, under N.D.P.S. Act, Patna, and on that basis the police registered a case, vide Alamganj Police Station Case No. 260 of 2007. It was stated in the written report by P.W. 2 that he had received a secret information while he was on patrolling duty on 24.8.2007 at 7.30 a.m. that the appellant had retained some articles obtained through commission of dacoity and if a raid was conducted the articles and the dacoits could be found there. A raiding party was formed and the house of the appellant was allegedly surrounded by the police. The informant entered inside the house of the appellant and after pointing out the purpose of his entry into the house, wanted to search the same in presence of independent witnesses, Raju Kumar (P.W. 8) and Rajendra Gope (P.W. 6.). It was alleged that during the course of search of the house no looted article could be found. However, ganja about 20.5 k.gs. was found kept under the bed which was bundled up in some plastic sheet and had been tied with rope. All rooms of the house were searched, but no further recovery was made except the above recovery of ganja.

3. The appellant was questioned, as per the allegation, and he pointed out that he used to indulge in selling ganja by making purias (sachets) of the value of Rs. 3, 8 and 12 and that exercise was carried out in his another house which was situated in Hajmagali. Accordingly, the informant came to that particular house said to be belonging to the appellant and started searching the same at 10.30 a.m. On search of one of the rooms a polythene packet was found containing 1.5 k.g. of ganja. Besides, two hundred small packets of plastic and some pieces of paper were also recovered which could be used in making purias for selling ganja.

4. On the above allegation the appellant was arrested. The informant stated that he prepared samples out of the seized ganja and got the signatures of the seizure list witnesses on those sealed packets besides signing the same himself.

5. On the basis of the above written report of P.W. 2, the case was registered and investigation was handed over to P.W.1 Sri Rajeshwar Prasad Mishra who after close of the investigation sent up the appellant for trial.

6. The defence of the appellant was that the part of the house from where the first recovery of 20.5 k.gs. of ganja was made by the informant was in possession of the tenant, namely, Jagdanand Yadav and when he came back from outside he was informed by his mother that tenanted paxt of the house was searched by the police and they had taken some belongings of the tenant Jagadanand Yadav with them and the appellant was required to meet the Police Officer. The appellant further pleaded that when he went to meet the police officer along with his younger brother he and his younger brother were made to sign some papers and the appellant was put in the lock up and was implicated by the informant in the present case.

7. For proving the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined a total number of eight witnesses as also one Court witness, namely,. Ram Lallan Kumar. The witnesses to seizu