The judgment establishes the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, comply with legal provisions, and correctly frame charges to secure a conviction.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29-03-2003 delivered by Shri Raghubir Singh, Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Ambikapur District-Sarguja in Special Criminal Case No. 14/2001 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section-22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for three years.

2. The appellant was in jail during trial from 26-07-2001 and is undergoing sentence from the date of judgment.

3. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 25-07-2001 A.S.I. B.N. Singh PW-4 received secret information at 10 A.M. that the appellant Bholaram had some psychotropic substance in his possession for sale at Bus Stand, Ambikapur. After recording the of ores aid secret information and informing higher officials, he proceeded to Bus Stand, Arnbikapur with Police staff and witnesses Santosh PW -1 & Sudama and apprehended the appellant. After serving notice under Section-50 of the Act and the appellant having been consented to be searched by him, A.S.I. B.N. Singh PW -4 searched the appellant and found in his right full pant pocket brown sugar like substance kept in 3 plastic bags weighing approximately 15 grams. The brown sugar like substance was mixed on a plain paper and was weighed. It was found that the net weight of the substance seized was 12 Grams 800 Milligram while along with the plastic bags it weighed 14 Grams 170 Milligrams. The entire brown sugar like substance was kept in one small plastic bag and was sealed by A.S.L B.N. Singh along with 3 empty plastic bags. The aforesaid sealed substance was handed over to Head Constable Mahesh Gupta No. 296, Malkhana Moharir of Police Station-Ambikapur for safe custody. On 27-07-2001 vide memo EX.P-19 of Superintendent of Police, Sarguja at Ambikapur, the aforesaid sealed packet was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for chemical examination. Vide report EX.P-20 dated 09-10-2001 it was opined by the Forensic Science Laboratory that the substance sent for examination was Diacetylmorphine (Heroin), After completion of investigation, the appellant was prosecuted under Section-22 of the Act. The appellant abjured the guilt pleaded innocence and led no evidence in defence. The prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses. Relying upon the testimony of A.S.I. B.N. Singh PW-4, Hemant Khare PW-3, S.H.O. Ambikapur and the F.S.L. report Ex.P-20, the trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid in para-1 (Supra).

4. Shri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant on the ground that the evidence led by the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant under Section-22 of the Act of 1985. It was contended that Heroin, a Drug commonly known as brown sugar was a Narcotic Drug and contravention in respect thereof was an offence under Section-21 of the Act of 1985. The conviction of the appellant under Section-22 of the Act of 1985 was thus erroneous. It was also argued that independent witness Santosh PW -1 did not support the prosecution case and another independent witness Sudama was not examined by the prosecution, for which an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the prosecution. Learned counsel also urged that non-compliance of Section-55 vitiates the whole prosecution since neither the Malkhana Moharrir Head Constable Mahesh Gupta PW-3 to whom the property was entrusted for safe custody, was examined nor was any evidence led by the prosecution to show that the Station House Officer of P.S. Ambikapur had affixed his seal on the seized and sealed substance handed over by A.S.I. B.N. Singh PW-4 for safe custody. Lastly, it was contended that the report of Forensic Science Laboratory did not show that the packet sent for chemical analysis contained 3 Plasti