HASSAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal from Jail by Chhoteylal springs from his conviction under Sections 20 (b) (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short, the Act) and sentence of to years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of one lac (in default, further one years R. I.) for having illegal possession of charas (cannabis) weighing 27 grm. with a small sack, passed vide judgment dated 13-6-1988 by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer.

( 2 ) ON 4-3-1987 at 7 p. m. having received a secret information that near chhoti Daig (cauldron-a large boiling vessel) placed in Daragah Shariff mosque, at Ajmer one Choteylal had been selling charas having a small black coloured attachi in his hand. Astali Khan (Sub-Inspector, Police) along with Kanaram (Asstt. Sub-Inspector), Nandkishore (L. C. No. 1082) Suresh Chand (L. C. No. 225) and Sajjan Singh (L. C. No. 1145) proceeded from Buland Darwaja towards small cauldron inside Dargah near thereby they found one person standing with a small black coloured attachi in his hand, who was entangled in the presence of motbirs, Arjun and Pratap Singh and who named himself as Chhoteylal (appellant) and then was searched thereupon in his pants right hand pocket, Rupees 410/- and a small sack were found and in that sack on its opening charas was found which was recovered and on weighing it was 27 grames and the appellant could not produce any permit for possession thereof. The appellant was arrested, and on the basis of recovery and seizure memo of charas an First Information Report was chalked out at the Police Station Buland Darwaja (Ajmer) for the offence Under Sections 8/20/21/32 of the Act which was transferred and sent through Chhitar Singh (F. C. 549) to the Police Station Ganj (Ajmer) where a criminal case No. 41/87 was registered. After completing necessary formalities of investigation, report was presented before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Ajmer. Sealed bag of the charas was sent for chemical examination through Dashrath Singh and according to the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. P. 6) charas was found in the small sack. After going through the documents, the Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The Additional Sessions Judge Ajmer, after framing the charge for an offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the Act of which the appellant pleaded not guilty, examined in all nine prosecution witnesses and accused appellant under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein the accused denied the prosecution allegation but, no defence was produced by him. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence charged, and the appellant was sentenced as stated in first para of this judgment.

( 3 ) BEFORE I deal with forensic controversy, a broad brush legal back drop and reference to the relevant provisions of the Act will help delineate the controversy involved.

( 4 ) THE Act has prescribed minimum punishment of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- irrespective of the quantity recovered, with enhanced punishment for offences after the previous conviction of the person concerned. The Opium Act, 1878 (repealed by the Act) prescribed no procedure except that the possession of opium without licence was made punishable and there was no minimum punishment prescribed but it was left to the discretion of judicial Courts. Further I more, under the Act, a specific procedure has been laid down for arresting of the persons their search, deposit of the article recovered, taking samples therefrom etc. under different sections of the Act, but has saved the application of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, in so far as the same are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act with respect to the warrants issued, arrests, searches and seizures thereunder. The legislature has deliberately made such provisions and has given some safeguards to the accused pers