1. - This criminal appeal under section 374 (2) Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.11.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jhalawar by which the learned Special Judge convicted accused appellant Murli Manohar under section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Pshychotrophic Substances Act, (for short the "Act") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one years.

2. The marital facts of the prosecution case in nut shell giving rise to this instant appeal are as follows:

3. On 28.2.2000 at around 10.15 A.M. PW2 Prem Shankar Meena, SHO Police Station, Aklera received information from informant that one boy of Meena community is standing in the Fair ground, Aklera having smack with him, which was kept in the sat of his Hero Honda Motor Cycle. Having received the information and after reducing it in writing, the SHO along with police officials rushed to the mela ground, he found one boy sitting on a motor cycle and was waiting for some one. On enquiry, the boy disclosed his name as Murli Manohar S/O Kalyan Meena. The SHO then informed him of his right to get his search conducted either in the presence of any gazetted officer or the SHO himself. Thereafter, he conducted search of the appellant and the motor cycle. In the course of search, the SHO recovered brown coloured powder lying in a polythene cover kept beneath the seat cover of motor cycle. On smell it was found to be smack an d that accused himself also admitted it to be smack. On getting it weighed, it was found to be 17 grams and 800 ml-grams. He then took sample of the smack weighing 5 grams and sealed the same. The remaining smack was also sealed in a separate packet. The packets were deposited in the Malkhana.

4. The SHO arrested the accused appellant and prepared memo Ex.P8, and prepared search and seizure memo Ex.P.6. He also seized the motor cycle vide seizure memo Ex.P.7. The SHO then submitted a detailed report, on the basis of which a case vide FIR Ex. P. 10 was registered against the appellant. In the course of investigation, the sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory vide letter Ex. P. 15. The report of FSL Ex. P. 14 mentions that on micro-chemical examination, the sample contained in the packet marked a gave positive tests for the presence of diacety-l morphine (heroin).

5. On completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the appellant. The learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jhalawar framed charge against the accused appellant for offence under section 8/21 of the Act. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. In the course of trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. In his explanation, the appellant stated that he had no connection with the motor cycle. He was seeing film in the fair. He was called from inside and forcibly took him to the police station. He further stated that no such option was given to him. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence.

6. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge found the prosecution case, as alleged, proved and accordingly, holding the appellant guilty of the offence under section 8/21 of the Act convicted him of the said offence and sentenced him as aforesaid. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused judgment under appeal and the record of the case.

8. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the conviction mainly on three grounds. The first ground urged by him as that the investigating agency has utterly failed to call independent witnesses as required under the provisions of section 100 of the