PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned APP for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.12.2012 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Saharsa in Special Case No.13 of 2008, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the accused Ranjan Kumar Sah under Section 20 (b) (ii) (A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter in short referred to as the 'NDPS Act') and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and also slapped him with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in case of default of payment of fine further to undergo R.I. for one month.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that Special Case No.13 of 2008 was instituted u/s. 20(b) of the NDPS Act by the personnel of the Excise Department with the case in succinct that on secret information personnel of the Excise Department raided the betel shop of the accused Ranjan Kumar Sah on 20.12.2008 located in refugee colony and recovered and seized 43 big pudia each containing 1 gram, 80 small pudia each containing gram, 15 cigarettes and open 150 gram ganja, total 233 gram ganja from the said shop and prepared the seizure list in presence of the witnesses and copy of seizure list was furnished to the accused.

4. The aforesaid case was investigated by the personnel of Excise Department and on conclusion of the investigation and finding the case true, the Excise Department furnished the prosecution report under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act against the aforesaid accused.

5. On receiving the prosecution report along with the seizure list and perusing the same, the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act against the accused.

6. Charge against the accused was framed under Sections Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act. Charge was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To substantiate its case, in ocular evidence, the prosecution has been able to examine altogether four prosecution witnesses, namely, Excise Constable Arun Kumar Sharma as PW-1, Excise Constable Lal Babu Mishra as PW-2, A.S.I. Excise Pramod Kumar Srivastava as PW-3 and S.I. Excise Binit Prasad as PW-4. In documentary evidence, the prosecution has filed and proved certain documents.

8. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The case of the defence is complete denial of the occurrence claiming himself to be innocent. The defence has neither adduced any ocular nor documentary evidence in buttress of its case.

9. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence as detailed in the earlier paragraph.

10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convict has preferred present Criminal Appeal.

11. The point for consideration in this case is, as to whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts or not.

12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution happen to be official witnesses and there is no independent witness of the occurrence. Even there is no independent witness of the search and seizure of alleged contraband from the possession of the appellant rather the witnesses happen to be official witnesses, hence there is violation of provision of search & seizure. It is further submitted that the alleged contraband is said to be weighing 233 grams but the same was not weighed at the place of occurrence rather the raiding party has mentioned the weight of the aforesaid contraband merely on guessing. It is further submitted that the aforesaid contraband was not sent to F.S.L. for its chemical examination. Hence, for want of chemical