RAM PRASANNA SHARMA, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18-3-2010 passed by the Special Judge (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985) (for short, "the Act, 1985") Rajnandgaon, in Special Case No. 3 of 2009, wherein the said Court has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20 (b)(ii) (c) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulations.

2. As per prosecution case, Police Officer namely G.C. Pati (PW/12) Officer Incharge of Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon received secret information from informer/Mukhbir on 14-3-2009 at 3.00 pm that the appellant had kept a large quantity of contraband article Ganja in a room of his house situated at village Daniya to sell the same in rural area Information was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha and information was sent to superior officer. Two independent witnesses were called and thereafter police personnel and other witnesses reached to the house of the appellant and after search 33 bags were found lying in the house of the appellant. Two samples of 50 grams each were separated from each bag which was sealed and specimen seal was also prepared. Seized articles were entrusted to Incharge of Malkhana of the said Police Station. Samples were sent for chemical examination to FSL where test of Ganja was found positive. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.

3. The appeal is preferred on the following grounds.

(i) PW/2 Santosh and PW/5 Arun have deposed that when they were standing to see the gate being constructed over the road of their village at Gabhra, one Police van came there and police persuaded to accompany them to go to the village Daniya, therefore, it is not established that both witnesses were called by the Police Officer before proceeding towards the house of the appellant. No Mukhbir information was produced in writing, therefore, compliance of Sections 42 of the Act, 1985, is not established.

(ii) Seizure of bags were not proved by the witnesses, therefore, seizure part is also not established against the present appellant.

(iii) There is no evidence about the custody of the contraband from the date of its seizure till its production before the Court and provision of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 has not been followed, therefore, case appears to be fabricated at the instance of the Investigating Officer, therefore, conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside.

(iv) Bags of contraband article were found in courtyard of the house and it is not the exclusive possession of the appellant.

(v) The Investigating Officer and informer are the same person and Panchnama witnesses have not supported the version of the prosecution.

In support of the arguments, he placed reliance on Gorakh Nath Prasad vs. State of Bihar decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2184 of 2017.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that judgment of the trial Court is strictly in accordance with law and the same is not liable to be interfered while invoking the jurisdiction of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the court below in which impugned judgment is passed.

6. Sub Inspector of Police Station, Chhuikhadan, G.C. Patri (PW/12) deposed before the trial court that he received information from one informer that on 14-3-2009 that the appellant was having in his possession huge quantity of contraband article Ganja. Information was recorded as per Ex.P/9 and one panchnama (Ex.P/10) was prep4.ared for not getting search warrant. This information was sent to Sub Divisional Officer (Police). as per Section 42 of the Act, 1985 and information is Ex.P/37. Thereafter, he reached to the spot along with police personnel and other independent witnesses . He informed the appellant abou