JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Chandel, J. - The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.11.2015 passed by the Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (henceforth 'the NDPS Act'), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.1207 of 2014, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.10.2014, Shankar Lal Chandrakar (PW8), Station-in-Charge of Police Station, G.R.P., Raipur received information that one person is sitting with two bags containing contraband article Ganja at platform No.1 near the over bridge which was under construction in Railway Station, Raipur and he was waiting for a train to go to Nagpur. Shankar Lal Chandrakar (PW8) prepared a Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama thereof (Ex.P2) and forwarded the said information to the higher officer in compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Thereafter, he reached at the spot along with witnesses. In compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, he gave a notice (Ex.P4) to the Appellant and obtained his consent (Ex.P5). Thereafter, he searched the Appellant. He found that the Appellant had kept two airbags. One bag had contained 13 Kgs. of contraband article Ganja and the other bag had contained 12 Kgs. of the contraband article. During the search, it was found that the contraband article kept in the bags was green-brown seeds containing leaves. 50 Gms. quantity of the contraband article was taken out from one bag as a sample and marked as A1. Likewise, 50 Gms. quantity of the contraband article was taken out from the other bag as a sample and marked as A2. Both the sample packets (A1 and A2) and the remaining quantity of the recovered contraband article were seized vide Ex.P8. He arrested the Appellant and thereafter returned to the police station and deposited the seized articles in Malkhana. Entry of deposit of the seized articles was made in Malkhana Register (Ex.P14) and acknowledgment of the said deposit is Ex.P15. He registered First Information Report (Ex.P16). In compliance with Section 57 of the NDPS Act, he sent information (Ex.P18) of the complete action taken to the higher officer. The sample packets (A1 and A2) were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Ex.P20 for examination. FSL report is Ex.P21, which is positive. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. Charge was framed against him.

3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. No witness has been examined in defence.

4. On completion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that without there being sufficient evidence available against the Appellant, the Trial Court has wrongly convicted him. One of the seizure witnesses has not been examined and another seizure witness Gaukaran Verma (PW2) is a pocket witness of police and, therefore, his statement is not reliable. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of other prosecution witnesses. It was further submitted that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have also not been duly complied with. Therefore, the conviction of the Appellant is not sustainable.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the State/Respondent supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and submitted that all the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have duly been complied with by the prosecution. It was further submitted by him that though one of the seizure witnesses has not been exam