D. L. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24th May 1988.

( 2 ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Ajmer, convicted the present appellant under section 20-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 3 ) PROSECUTION story unfolded during the trial is that 160 grams of Tcharas was recovered from the person of the present appellant. Hanuman Singh, P. W. 8, - received the information that a foreigner is selling the drugs and he is sitting nearby the Gujaron-ka-Shamsan. He proceeded with the police party consisting of P. W. 2 Guman Singh, P. W. 3, Jagdish Prasad, P. W. 4 Mooldan, P. W. 5 Jagdish Prasad, son of Radha Kishan. P. W. 6 Banshidhar and P. W. 7, Madan Singh. It is alleged that search of the present appellant was taken in the presence of Gureharan Singh, P. W. 1. Seizure memo Ex. P. 1 was prepared on the spot and the accused-appellant was arrested. The First Information Report of the occurrence was lodged at the Police Station just within an hour. The articles seized were also deposited in Maklhana and Ex. P. 3 has been produced to show that charast which was seized has been deposited in the Malkhana. It is alleged that the same was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory through messanger, P. W. 6, Banshidhar. The packet containing the sample was examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory and the report Ex. P. 6 was forwarded to the investigating agency. Forensic Science Laboratory found the article as charas.

( 4 ) AFTER examining 8 prosecution witnesses learned Additional Sessions Judge examined accused- appellant under section 313, Cr. P. C. Accused-appellant tried to explain by stating that he was sitting out side Pushkar and his legs were on the foot path. He has stated that one man came, he Clashed against his leg and fell down, on this altercation took place. The man who fell down took him away at the Police Station and he was arrested. He has further stated that the man who had the altercation, was later found to be the Station House Officer, Police Station.

( 5 ) MR. Dhankar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant has assailed the judgment of the court below on the following grounds: 1. That no independent witness has been produced to corroborate the testimony of the Police Officers. 2. That the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the sample which was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 3. It was also submitted by Mr. Dhankar that the prosecution has come with a case that 160 grams of charas was recovered and out of that 30 grams of Tcharas was taken for the purpose of sample. He submits that from the perusal of the report of the Foresee Science Laboratory it can only be said that 25 grams of charas was sent for chemical examinations thereby he wants to make a case that the identity of the article seized and the artiest to the Forentic Science Laboratory might have changed during the intervening period. Mr. Dhankar further submitted that Gaman Singh was not an eye-witness of the occurrence and the court below has also accepted this part of his submission in Para No. 14 of the judsment. A person who has been condemned was the in-charge of the Malkhana and, at such, the whole proceedings including the investigation stands vitiated. Mr. Dhankar bas also invited my attention to other inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State supported the judgment of the court below. He submitted that the presumption should be drawn under section 54 of the Act of 1985. He further submits that the article was seized at about 2 P. M. on 15th March 1987 and it was deposited on the same day at about 3 P. M. He further submitted that there is no reason why the evidence of the Police Officer should not be accepted.

( 6 ) I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the record of the case