The accused can be convicted based on the trustworthy statement of the investigating officer, and non-production of the entire seized contraband does not vitiate the trial if no prejudice is proven.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2007 passed by Special Judge, Bilaspur in Special Case No. 30/2006 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 20(b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'Act of 1985') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 16.08.2006 a secret information was received by S.L. Chouhan (PW-4) - Station House Officer, Kota to the effect that one Ramesh Dubey, resident of Kota was keeping ganja in his house. The said information was reduced to writing vide Ex.P-3 and in compliance of Section 42 of the Act of 1985, it was forwarded to SDO (P) vide Ex.P4. When the police party reached the house of Ramesh Dubey, an information was also given to them that accused/appellant herein namely Suresh Dubey the brother of Ramesh Dubey was in possession of contraband. Notice under Section 50 of the Act of 1985 was given to the appellant vide Ex.P-5; his consent was obtained vide Ex.P-6 and thereafter personal search memo of police people as well as the accused was prepared vide Ex.P-7 to P-10. Contraband was recovered vide Ex.P-11; its identification was made vide Ex.P-12; verification memo of weighing balance was prepared vide Ex.P-13; weighment memo Ex.P-14 was prepared and vide Ex.P-15 22.650 Kg of ganja contained in four plastic bags was seized each carrying 7 Kg, 8 Kg, 5.150 Kg and 2.500 Kg which was kept in small packets. Two samples of 100 gms each were drawn, samples and contraband were sealed and vide Ex.P-16, the accused/appellant was arrested. After returning to police station entry was made in Rojnamcha sanha vide Ex.P-24, contraband was handed over to head constable for being kept in safe custody vide Ex.P-1 and it was kept in safe custody vide Ex.P-2. Notice was given to the accused/appellant under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to whether he was having any license or authority to keep the contraband, which was answered in negative. Vide Ex.P-27 in compliance of Section 57 of the Act of 1985, a detailed report regarding entire proceedings was sent to SDO(P) Kota and FIR Ex.P-26 was registered against the accused/appellant under Section 20(B) of Act of 1985. Electricity bill Exp-31 was collected to establish the ownership of the premises. Vide Ex.P-28 FSL memo dated 18.08.2006 was prepared, samples were sent to FSL on that day itself and after receiving positive FSL report Ex.-P30 challan was filed on 13.11.2006 under the same section Court below however framed the charge under Section 20(b) (ii) (C) of the Act of 1985.

3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined 05 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. He has also taken a defence that as he was asked by police people to dump murum, he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

4. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that there is total noncompliance of Section 42 of the Act of 1985 as the secret information was in respect of the contraband in possession of the accused/appellant which was reduced to writing vide Ex.P-3 and sent to superior officer vide Ex.P-4 but in his Court statement the investigating officer has stated that secret information was received in respect of Ramesh Dubey and not Suresh Dubey. According to him, the investigating officer has further stated that while completing the formalities in the case of Ramesh Dubey, he had received a secret information in respect of ganja in possession of the accused/appellant namely Suresh Dubey and thus according to the counsel for the appellant Ex.P-2 & P-3 are nothing but fabricated documents. He submits that out