V. S. DAVE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a jail appeal preferred against the judgment of Addi. Sessions Judge, Gangapur-city, dated April 2, 1987 who convicted the appellant for offence under S. 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the accused-appellant is alleged to have been travelling in Train No. 24 UP going from Gangapur to Sawaimadhopur and two train Police guards, (G. R. P. Constables) namely, Girraj Prasad PW. 3 and Pratap Singh PW. 4 were travelling in ordinary second class compartment. The, found the appellant sitting on one of the single seats. It is alleged that he felt little disturbed on seeing the constables and, therefore, he was interrogated by Girraj Prasad constable. Girraj Prasad had noticed something in his right-hand under the rug he was putting on and so asked him to remove his hand and there fell down a small packet (P0th ). On opening of the same it was found that it was full of Charas. It was asked from Gulam Hussain whether he had license to which he denied. Just then the train had started from Gangapur Railway Station for Kota and by the time the interrogation went on it reached Sawaimadhopur Railway Station. In the Same compartment were travelling two witnesses-Suresh Kumar P. W. 2 and Mahaveer Prasad P. W. 1. They were also asked to get down and all these four persons along with the accused-appellant came back from Sawaimadhopur to G. R. P. Police Station Gangapur city by 81 down train. There a written report was lodged by Girraj Prasad. The Charas was weighed which was found to be 1 kg. two samples were obtained and documents were prepared. After completion of investigation a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant who was committed to the Court of Addi. Sessions Judge, Gangapur city. The prosecution in support of its case examined six witnesses. The accused appellant denied the whole incident and did not lead any evidence in his defence. The trial court believed the statements of the prosecution witnesses and convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated above. It is pertinent to mention here that the appeal was received from jail and, therefore, an amicus curiae was appointed by the court. Record was sent for. It is also pertinent to mention here that the accused was directed to be released on bail by the trial court but he belonging to Kashmir and there being no relations on this side he could not be bailed out and he remained in jail despite the order of bail as mentioned above passed on 27. 10. 86.

( 3 ) I have heard Mr. Chand Mal Jam, amicus curiae and perused the entire record. The facts and circumstances of this case are alarming and speak of an unfair investigation. According to the prosecution both the constables boarded the train from Gangapur city and were on way to Kota as on duty. In the same compartment they had two witnesses, one of whom is a tea vendor on Gangapur Railway Station and another is friend who was by the way going to Kota to meet the sister of Mahaveer. Therefore, all the four witnesses belong to Gangapur city and have inter linked in between themselves having known each-other for past many years. No independent witness was sought to be called while the search and seizure was made. There were number of passengers travelling in the same compartment but none of them was either made a witness or was interrogated. Even their names had not been taken down. The most alarming is that when train left Gangapur and the Police guard detected the commission of the offence before the train arrived at Sawaimadhopur Railway station no effort was made to pull the chain and inform the train guard. Leave aside that, when the train reached Sawaimadhopur which is one of the ruin junctions on Broad Gauge and where there is police post no effort was made for taking the culprit to the police station at Sawaimadhopur where the accused could have been taken into custody and the case registered.