1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25-01-2008 passed by Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act, 1985'), Durg in Special Case No.11/2006. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Semadri Jena has been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 2 years.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

On 30-05-2006, Assistant Sub-Inspector Mahadev Tiwari (PW-8) was posted in Crime Branch Police Station Bhatti, Distt. Durg. Rajeev Shrama (not examined) was posted as Incharge of the Crime Branch. On that day, Crime Branch Incharge Rajeev Sharma received an information from mukhbir that the appellant is selling illegal Ganja at Balaji Nagar Khursipar. Rajeev Shanna entered the information in rojnamcha sanha No. 1781 (Ex.-P/20C), prepared mukhbir suchna panchnama and transmitted the said information to City Superintendent (Police), Chhawani vide Ex.-P/18C and he requested to proceed for raid without search warrant. He called witnesses. Thereafter, Rajeev Shanna, ASI Mahadev Tiwari (PW-8), other police personnel and witnesses proceeded towards Balaji Nagar, Khursipar. They reached the house of the appellant and gave him notice for search vide Ex.-P/7. The appellant was informed about his right under Section 50 of the Act, 1985 vide. Ex. P-7. The appellant gave, his consent regarding search and the same was recorded vide EX.P-8. Thereafter, Assistant Sub-inspector Mahadev Tiwari (PW-8) made search of the house of the appellant. Ganja like substance was found in a tin container which was seized from possession of the appellant. Identification of the recovered article was conducted vide Ex.-P/12. After physical verification, it was found that the recovered article was Ganja. Ganja was weighed on the spot vide EX.-P/14. The Ganja was kept in the tin container. The container contained 25 Kgs. of Ganja. A sum of Rs.23, 130/- was also recovered from the appellant. The Ganja and the recovered amount was seized vide Ex.-P/15. A sample of the seized Ganja was prepared and sealed on the spot. Thereafter, ASI Mahadev Tiwari (PW-8) arrested the appellant and recorded dehati nalishi (Ex.-P/1), came back to Police Station Bhilai Bhatti and sent the seized Ganja and the appellant to Police Station Chhawani (Bhilai), where First Information Report (Ex.-P/2) was registered. Action taken report was sent to CSP, Chhawani (Bhilai). The seized Ganja and its sample were kept in Malkhana. The sample of seized Ganja was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for examination. Report (Ex.P/23) was received therefrom, in which, test of Ganja was found positive.

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Special Judge under the Act, 1985, Durg, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.

3. Shri K.K. Dwivedi and Shri Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no compliance of provisions of Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the Act, 1985. They further argued that the secret information was received by Rajeev Sharma but he did not record the said mukhbir suchna. They further argued that there is nothing on record to show that the tin container was containing Ganja and the sample taken out from the container was sealed and specimen of seal was prepared. The seizure from the appellant was not in accordance with law. The seized article was not produced in the Court. There is possibility of tampering of the sample. The investigating officer did not prepare seal panchnama and specimen of seal was not affixed on the seizure memo and other requisite documents. Information under Section 57 of the Act, 1985 was also sent belatedly. Hence, the appellant deserves acquittal. They placed reliance on Directora