( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by Ghanshyam against his conviction under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (No. 61 of 1985) (hereinafter referred to as the act ) and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. l,00,000. 00 or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year vide judgement dated 3. 4. 1993 and order dated 7. 4. 1993 of Shri Kuldip Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to the filing of the challan against Ghanshyam and Raj Kishore by Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi in case FIR No. 69 dated 23. 3. 1989 are as under:-

( 3 ) INSPECTOR Dharam Pal Singh, SHO Police Station, Civil Lines, had a prior information that persons residing in Jhuggis opposite Akahara Chandgi Ram have been making supply of smack in retail after bringing the same from outside. On 23. 3. 1989 at about 4. 55 pm. SHO received secret information with regard to the availability of smack in the Jhuggi of Ghanshyam where small puriyas were being prepared of the said smack. Accordingly, a raiding party was organised by the SHO in which S. I. Mahender Singh, ASI Bhaktawar Singh and a number of Police Constables were joined. On the way arequest was made to some passer byes and one Chaman Singh, public man,was joint as a witness. The members of the raiding party reached the Jhuggi of Ghanshyam and at the pointing out of the informer Ghanshyam and Ram Kishore were apprehended. At that time Ghanshyam was putting Heroin on papers and the same was being converted into small puriyas by Raj Kishore. Both Ghanshyam and Raj Kishore were informed that if they desired they could be searched in the presence of a gazzetted officer or a Magistrate, but they declined this offer. They were found in possession of Heroin which on weighing was found to be 520 grams. 5 grams of said Heroin was separated as a sample and, theafter, both the sample and the remaining Heroin were sealed separately with the seal of B. S. of ASI Bhaktawar Singh and with the seal of D. P. of the SHO. Central Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as the cfsl ) form was also filled up and these were taken into possession after preparing a memo. Rucca was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which the case was registered. Statements of witnesses were recorded and the case property was deposited with the Malkhana. Both Ghanshyam and Raj Kishore were arrested.

( 4 ) SAMPLE was sent to CFSL wherefrom report was received. The accused by keeping in their possession Heroin were alleged to have committed offence under Section 21 of the Act and, so, they were challanged.

( 5 ) IN support of its case the prosecution examined six witnesses, viz. ASI Dharam Pal Singh, Public Witness /1; Constable Baldev Raj, Public Witness /2; Charan Singh, Public Witness /3; Head Constable Rajbir Singh, Public Witness /4; Inspector Dharam Pal, Public Witness /5; and ASI Bakhtawar Singh, Public Witness /6. Ghayshyam when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied all the allegations and claimed that nothing was recovered from him and that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has also pleaded that only interested witnesses have made false statements against him and that alongwith co-accused Raj Kishore he was taken to the Police Station from their house by ASI Baktawar Singh and, thereafter, falsely implicated.

( 6 ) THE accused examined four witnesses, viz. Sheela Devi, DW/l;vijaykumar, DW/2;roshanlal,dw/3; and Sukhpal Singh,dw/4; in their defence. The learned trial court after hearing arguments convicted the appellant as also Raj Kishore, as referred to above.

( 7 ) I have heard Shri K. B. Andley, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri H. J. Singh, learned counsel for the State. I have also gone through the record.

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that even if the prosecution story with regar