In NDPS Act cases, unimpeachable evidence regarding the contraband sample's weight and compliance with legal provisions is necessary for conviction.

Satya Prakash Pathak, J.-This appeal under Section 374 CrPC is directed against the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur dated 212.1987 in Sessions Case No. 52/1986 (State vs. Hajari Mal) whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 8(c)/15 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as the NDPS Act) and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that PW. 6 Bakshi Singh, SHO, Police Station Dhan Mandi, Udaipur, while on patrolling duty on 05.05.1986 along with Head Constable Surajmal, Head Constable Sohan Singh, Constable Onkarlal and Foot Constable Paras Mal at about 9.30 p.m. reached at Lakhara Chowk, Udaipur they saw accused carrying a bag (Bori) on his head. On seeing the police party, the accused appellant became nervous and it gave rise to suspicion, as such he was stopped and was asked to disclose his identity. The accused disclosed his name Hajari Mal son of Kaluram resident of Surpura, Tehsil Kapasan. The bag found in the possession of the accused when opened, crushed pieces of poppy straw (Afeem Ke Kuchale Huve Dode) were found therein. The accused was asked for license/permit for the possession of the contraband material in his possession on which the accused denied of having any license/permit to carry the contraband item. The total weight of the recovered contraband with the bag was found to be 21 Kgs. out of which 250 gms. was taken out for chemical examination. The sample so taken was sealed. The remaining poppy straw was also sealed at the spot separately. Recovery memo Exhibit-P/1, arrest memo Exhibit-P/2 and inspection note/site plan Exhibit-P/4 were prepared in presence of Motbirs PW. 1 Dinesh Kumar and PW. 5 Shantilal. After reaching the Police Station, FIR Exhibit-P/5 was lodged in the Police Station and a case No. 43/86 under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act was registered against the accused by Parcha Kayami Exhibit-P/6. The sealed sample packet was sent for chemical examination in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. The FSL Report is Exhibit-P/9. The sample on examination showed presence of Opium which was dried crushed capsules of poppy.

3. After usual investigation, challan was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur (North) and on committal the matter was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur. A charge under Section 8(c)/15 read with Section 17 of the NDPS Act was framed against the accused appellant on 23.1987. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined six witnesses (PW.1 to PW. 6). After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded on 111.1987, wherein accused denied the charge and stated that he has falsely been implicated and infact one of Motbirs of the case Dinesh Kumar was a shop-keeper and a dispute arose between the accused appellant and PW. 1 Dinesh Kumar as Dinesh Kumar did not make payment of 25 kgs. of cotton to him. In defence, two witnesses have been examined. The trial Court after hearing both sides convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated hereinabove. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 212.1987 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, the present appeal has been filed.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for accused appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and carefully perused the material available on the record.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused appellant has contended that the learned trial Court has not scrutinized the prosecution evidence in the light of checks available on record and also ignored the inherent possibilities appearing in the evidence. It has further been contended that no evidence has been led by the prosecution to show that the seal on the sample rema