1. - This appeal has been preferred by accused appellant Khem Raj S/o Uda b/c Raigar, Resident of Kazli, Police Station Rathanjna, District Chittorgarh against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No.21/1988, whereby the accused appellant was held guilty for the commission of offence under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. One Lac and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.

2. The nub of the prosecution story is that on dated 30.12.1987, a reliable information was received by District Central Narcotics Officer that the opium was lying in the house and field of Khemraj. On this information, District Central Narcotics Officer constituted a team comprising of Yashpal Singh Tyagi, Inspector and other officers of the Narcotics Department. They started towards Kazli village and came to the knowledge that Khemraj was on his well. The team of the Narcotics Department reached the well of Khemraj and there, they conducted a search and found the opium in the roots of a Babool tree and later they came to residence of Khemraj and conducted the search of residential house of Khemraj and found opium weighing 7 Kg 300 gms in the drum lying in the 'Padsal'. As there was no suitable arrangement of light, the seizure memo and other procedural steps were put into black and white at the 'Chakki'. After usual procedure, the raid party came to Chittorgarh. Some of the opium was kept as sample and that was sent for chemical examination in the Forensic Science Laboratory. After receiving the report and after recording the statements of the witnesses, a charge sheet was filed, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh from where case was committed for trial to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh. Two separate charge sheets were filed, one for possession of the opium at the field of accused and another was filed for keeping the opium in the house. This case relates to the possession of the opium in the house of the accused appellant.

3. Accused appellant was charged for the commission of offence under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses, during the course of investigation, the incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution was put for explanation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and accused adduced no evidence in his defence.

4. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 07.02.1989, held the accused appellant guilty for the commission of offence under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced as above.

5. In the memo of appeal, learned counsel for the accused appellant contended that learned trial court erred in holding the accused appellant guilty for commission of offence charged because there was no iota of evidence regarding the actual, conscious and exclusive possession over the house of the accused appellant. It was further contended that there was no reliable evidence on record that house was owned or possessed by the accused appellant and, therefore, appellant could not be attributed to any physical possession much less conscious possession of the opium. It was further contended in the memo of appeal that P.W. 1 Yashpal Singh Tyagi was having no personal knowledge about the possession or ownership of the disputed house because as per his statement he derived the knowledge from Sarpanch about ownership and possession of the house but the Sarpanch had not been examined in the evidence by the prosecution and the Panchs, who were present at the time of seizure, had not corroborated the evidence of the witnesses of the raid party. When there was no evidence regarding possession of house based on personal knowledge,