( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30/06/1992 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City of Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 228 of 1991. The appellant herein (for short the accused) came to be convicted under Sec. 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ndps Act) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. He was also convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sec. 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge directed substantive sentences to run concurrently.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case, leading to the trial of the accused may briefly be stated : on 1-4-1991, Police Constable Jagatsinh informed PSI Mr. D. B. Jadeja that one person Salimuddin @ Jugan Niyazuddin Ansari carrying with him some stock of charas and was to pass through Lal Mill Four Roads from Bapunagar- noornagar and to proceed towards Topi Mill. The PSI therefore made necessary entry in the Station Diary, informed the superior officer about the information, called the required panch witnesses and informed them about the aforesaid information and proceeded to the aforesaid place where Salimuddin was to reach and arranged a watch with the aid of the persons of his staff and the panch witnesses. The aforesaid person Salimuddin dressed with white pant and white shirt was found approaching the place walking down the distance from the side of noornagar. He was stopped at the place and since he was to be searched he was informed as to whether he wanted to be searched in presence of a Gazetted officer. The accused having expressed his desire to be searched in presence of a gazetted Officer, Police Inspector of Gomptipur police station was informed. The said Inspector having reached the place the accused was searched in his presence. During the course of the search, it was found that there was a plastic bag in the right pocket of the pant put on by the accused. It was apparently found to contain charas. The whole of the alleged article of charas was seized, taken possession of in presence of the panch witnesses after the same was weighed. The muddamal article was accordingly seized and sealed in presence of the accused on the spot. The same was handed over to the Police Station Officer (pso for short ). The accused was also handed over to the PSO. The PSI of the Gomptipur police station, Mr. D. B. Jadeja accordingly gave his complaint in writing. One pravinprasad Jagdishprasad who was on duty as a PSO in Gomptipur Police station had taken on record the report and complaint of Mr. Jadeja as Prohibition crime Register No. 209/91. Investigation was then carried out and the muddamal article was sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Upon receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory the accused came to be charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences. The case was committed to the Sessions court where after trial the accused met with conviction and sentence as aforesaid. The defence of the accused consisted of denial of the prosecution case while alleging that Constable Jagatsinh sought false case being filed against the accused under the circumstances that Jagatsinh had taken the accused to the police station at about 6. 30 in the evening on 1/04/1991 and that a false case was filed at the instance of said Jagatsinh who owed money to the accused. There is no defence evidence except the aforesaid defence version in further statement of the accused.

( 3 ) IN order to establish the prosecution case as aforesaid prosecution examined following witnesses :1. PW 1 Chandansinh Hadmatsinh Chauhan, Ex. 8, who happened to be the inspector and a Gazetted Officer in Gomptipur police station at the relevant point of time;2. PW 2 Jagatsinh Mulsinh Ex. 12 who happened to be