C.R. Sarma, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 12.09.2005, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, in Sessions (Spl.) Case No. 35(K)/03, whereby and whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act and sentenced him to suffer RI for 10 (ten) years and pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, suffer RI for another period of 3 (three) years. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the appellant, who is undergoing imprisonment from the date of judgment and order, has preferred this appeal.

2. Ms, N. Thakuria, learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant, taking this Court through the evidence, on-record, as well as the impugned judgment, has submitted that the prosecution failed to adduce substantive and corroborative evidence, regarding seizure of ganja from the conscious possession of the appellant and as such, the learned trial Judge committed error by recording conviction and sentence. It is also submitted that there is no independent witness, supporting the seizure of ganja from the possession of the appellant and that, there are major contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, examined by the prosecution, with regard to the place of recovery, seizure and time of seizure.

3. The learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant, has further submitted that in the present case, the informant, who lodged the FIR, being a Police Inspector, himself conducted the investigation also and submitted the charge-sheet and as such, the investigation being bias, the conviction, based on such investigation and evidence, collected by the said informant-cum-Investigating Officer, can not be maintained.

4. The learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has also submitted that the petitioner has already completed imprisonment for about 8 (eight) years for no fault on his part and that, this is a fit case, requiring interference with the impugned conviction and sentence.

5. Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, supporting the impugned conviction and sentence, has submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show that the seized ganj a was found in the possession of the appellant and as such, the learned trial Judge committed no error by convicting and sentencing the appellant, as indicated above.

6. In order to appreciate the arguments, advanced by the learned Counsel, appearing for both the parties, I have carefully perused the evidence, on-record. The FIR was lodged by Mr. D. Dutta (PW 7), S.I. of Police, CID. In the said FIR, which has been exhibited as Ext. No. 8, it has been mentioned that, on 03.12.2002, at about 3.15 PM, from a reliable source, the S.P., CID, Assam, Guwahati, came to know that the appellant used to deal with contraband substance i.e., ganja and accordingly, he, on being led by Mr. K. Shyam, Inspector of CID (PW-6), visited the house of the appellant. Deposing as PW 7, he stated that he found 36 Kg of ganja, kept in two gunny bags (21 kg in one bag and 15 kg in another bag) under a coconut tree in the courtyard of the appellant. As indicated in the said FIR, the seized ganja was found near a coconut tree within the compound of the appellant and the same was seized in presence of the witnesses. According to the PW-7, the search by him was supervised by PW-6. It appears that PW-2, a Constable, the PW-6 and the PW-7 went to the place of occurrence together.

7. From the said FIR (Ext. 8), it appears that seizure was made on 03.12.2002, but at the time of framing the charge, the date of occurrence was shown as 13.12.2003. Therefore, it is found that the charge was wrongly framed showing a wrong date of occurrence. Hence, the very foundation of trial itself was defective.

8. Sri Gajendra Nath Deka, Sr. Scientific Officer, Drugs and Narcotics Division, Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam, who examined the sample of the seized ganja deposed as PW-1. He stated that the sample was received by him o