JUDGMENT :

Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the accused under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.07.2021 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Mahasamund, District-Mahasamund in Special Session Criminal (N.D.P.S. Act) Case No.H-35/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offense punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as the “N.D.P.S. Act”) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine amount has to go for additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 07.09.2017, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Crime Branch, Mahasamund, namely, Nawdharam Khandekar has gone to Patewa-Pithoura along with staff members for searching the vehicles and during the search proceedings, a white ‘Tavera Car’ bearing registration no. MP-19-CT-2605, driven by the appellant-Murtuja Ali, came from Pithoura to Patewa and upon search of the said vehicle near toll plaza at village Dank (N.H.-53), 53.350 kg “Ganja” containing in 52 packets was recovered from the backside of it in presence of the witnesses which was kept by him for the purpose of sale. Before searching of the vehicle in question, the appellant was served with a notice (Ex.P-3) under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act informing him about his legal right either to be searched in presence of the Magistrate or any of the gazetted officers, who in turn, has consented to be searched by the said police officials and after the completion of the search proceedings, the alleged contraband article (Ganja) was recovered from the backside of the alleged vehicle. Baramdagi Panchnama (Ex.P-8) was, therefore, prepared wherein, apart from the alleged contraband article, the mobile phone, driving licence and the Adhar Card belonging to the appellant was recovered from him and the seizure memo (Ex.P-14) was, accordingly, made in presence of the witnesses. A few quantity of alleged contraband article was taken from each of the packets and thereupon it was mixed up for its testing in order to ascertain its character where it was detected to be “Ganja”. Thereafter, all the alleged contraband article was mixed up after opening all the packets and that by preparing “Samras Panchnama” vide Ex.P-12, it were kept in 4 gunny bags and, out of which, representative samples in 2 bags, each containing 100 grams of “Ganja”, were made vide Ex.P-15 and sent for its chemical examination and, vide F.S.L. Report (Ex.P-40), it was found to be the alleged contraband article. After completion of the thorough investigation, a final report was submitted against the appellant for the commission of the alleged offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, which was denied by him.

3. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and has exhibited 40 documents, while none was examined by the appellant in rebuttal.

4. The trial Court after considering the evidence led by the prosecution has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act and awarded the sentence as mentioned herein-above.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the attesting witnesses to the alleged seizure memo (Ex.P-14) have turned hostile without supporting the prosecution story, yet the appellant has been held liable mainly on the testimonies of the investigating officer. It is contended further while drawing attention to the Standing Orders bearing no.01/1988 and 01/1989 issued under Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act, that since the individual samples from each of the packets have not been drawn and sent for its chemical examination, therefore, it has caused a seriou