JUDGMENT

Ram Prasanna Sharma, J. - This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26-3-2011 passed by the Special Judge (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985) (for short, "the Act, 1985") Jagdalpur, in Special Case No. 22 of 2010, wherein the said Court has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20 (b)(ii) (b) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulations.

2. As per prosecution case, on 9-5-2010 Police Officer of Police Station, Bakavand namely K.D. Singh (PW/8) received confidential information from Mukhbir that the appellant is in possession of contraband article Ganja at Pithapur square and waiting for bus towards Jagdalpur. He recorded the same in Panchnama and information was sent to superior officer. Two independent witnesses were called and thereafter police personnel and other witnesses reached to the spot and found Ganja in possession of the appellant which was kept in a motor-cycle. The said article was seized and sealed. Samples were separated and sealed. The matter was investigated and 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/5 Neelam Baghel and PW/6 Jai Ram Nag have not supported the version of prosecution and conviction of the appellant is based on the statement of K.D. Singh, (PW/8) who is Police Officer., therefore, finding of conviction is not liable to be sustained.

ii) In the present case, provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act, 1985 have not been complied with but the trial court overlooked the same.

iii) The trial court has not evaluated the evidence in its true perspective, therefore, finding of the trial court is liable to be set aside.

Reliance has been placed in the matter of Arif Khan alias Agha Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) AIR SC 2123 .

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. Police Officer K.D. Singh (PW/8) deposed before the trial court that on 9-5-2010 he was posted at Police Station Bakavand and at about 14.30 O' clock he received information that one person having contraband article Ganja is standing at Pithapur square and waiting for bus towards Jagdalpur. He recorded the same in Rojnamcha Sanha as per Ex.P/25 and forwarded the information to City Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, he called two independent witnesses namely Neelam Baghel and Jai Ram Nag and thereafter informed to City Superintendent of Police regarding proceeding with the case. He rushed to the spot and when he called the appellant, he started fleeing. As per version of this witness, he gave notice to the appellant under Section 50 of the Act, 1985 that he can be searched by any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate but he opted to be searched by this Police Officer. After that he himself, staff and other witnesses were searched by the appellant and no objectionable article was found. Thereafter, motor-cycle of the appellant was searched in which cement plastic bag was found in which contraband article Ganja was found. Seized article was weighed and it was found to be 10 kgs. The article was mixed properly and two samples of 25 grams each were separated and sealed and rest of the Ganja was also seized. Samples were marked as A-1 and A-2. He made specimen seal and fixed the same on the sample. As per version of this witness, seized articles were deposited in Malkhana and handed over the same to Incharge of Malkhana. Samples were deposited in FSL and this witness produced seized article in the trial court and also submitted samp