JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Chandel, J. -This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.9.2017 passed by the Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act of 1985'), Saraipali, District Mahasamund in Special Criminal Case No.16 of 2016, whereby each of the Appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 12.2.2016, Inspector Pramesh Dhruw (PW12) of Police Station Saraipali received a secret information to the effect that Ganja was being transported from Orissa to Saraipali. The information was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No.666 (Ex.P38). Witnesses were called and the information was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Saraipali. Thereafter, Inspector Pramesh Dhruw (PW12) along with his team proceeded towards National Highway No.53 for barring (nakabandi) at Village Khamharpali. At about 6 p.m., a vehicle bearing registration No.CG 12 AH 1727 was stopped for inquiry. On being inquired, driver of the said vehicle told his name to be Raju Yadav (Appellant No.1) and other person told his name to be Punit Mahant (Appellant No.2). Both were given notice under Section 50 of the Act of 1985. On their consent, their search was made by the police team. 3 bags of Ganja were found inside the vehicle. On being weighed, quantity of Ganja was found to be 60 Kgs. Markings were done and thereafter 2 sample packets each containing 100 gms. were prepared. The sample packets were marked as A1 and A2. On return to the police station, a crime, being Crime No.58/16 was registered. Seized property was deposited in Malkhana and an acknowledgment (Ex.P27) thereof was obtained from Malkhana Moharrir Balram Sahu (PW7). Sample packets were sent for chemical examination. FSL report is Ex.P35. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Information of complete action was sent to the higher officers. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellants for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act of 1985. Charge was framed against them under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act of 1985.

3. To rope in the Appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statements of the Appellants were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness has been examined in their defence.

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

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants argued that the Trial Court has based its findings on conjectures and surmises and has also relied upon an inadmissible part of the evidence. The sole testimony of Investigating Officer Pramesh Dhruw (PW12) has illegally been accepted by the Trial Court. His statement is not only contradictory on material points but also does not find support from any of the independent witnesses. Even other police officials have not supported his version. Mandatory provision of Section 55 of the Act of 1985 has also not been complied with.

6. On the contrary, Learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

8. Investigating Officer Pramesh Dhruw (PW12) has deposed that on 12.2.2016, he received information to the effect that some persons were coming from Orissa and they were carrying Ganja with them. He recorded the information in Rojnamcha Sanha No.666 (Ex.P38). He also prepared a Mu