1. - Appellant-Hazari has preferred this appeal under section 374 Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 11.7.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the accused-appellant under section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short to be referred as 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. one lac, in default thereof, to further undergo two years simple imprisonment.

2. The prosecution case, in nut shell is that on 15.11.1999 at 8.50 a.m., PW-8 Chain Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kotputali received secret information that accused-Hazari S/o Ramdeo Ahir has kept concealed 2/2.500 Kgs. opium in his house and that he was about to sell the said opium to the truck drivers of Punjab. Accordingly, he prepared information memo and recorded the information in Rojnamcha. Thereafter, he along with police party left the police station for village Dhani Lakhwali Tan Khelna in Government Jeep bearing No. RJ-14-3C 1248 and RJ 14-C 5846 and reached the house of the appellant at 9.30 a.m. He also procured two independent witnesses, namely Rohitashwa and Radhey Shyam. The accused was found standing at the gate of his house. The Dy.S.P. first informed him of the suspicion that he was in illegal possession of opium kept concealed in his house. Thereafter, he gave notice, Ex. P/4 to the accused, thereby informing him of his right to have his search conducted either in the presence of any gazetted officer or the Magistrate. The accused consented for Deputy Superintendent of Police. Having received consent of the accused, his house was searched in the presence of independent witnesses and opium weighing 2.350 kgs. was recovered and seizure memo Ex.P/1 was prepared. The weights and measurement scales were also recovered. Four samples of opium, each weighing 50 grams were taken. The samples and remaining opium were sealed separately. The samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination.

3. Having completed entire formalities as to the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant. The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation and placed before it, framed charge against the appellant under section 8/18 of the Act. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many 20 witnesses and got exhibited some document. After the prosecution evidence was over, the accused was examined u/s.313 Criminal Procedure Code He did not examine any witness in his defence.

5. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of having committed offence under section 8/18 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated hereinabove.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the impugned judgment as also the evidence and material on record.

7. Mr. A.K. Gupta, appearing for the accused-appellant has assailed the conviction of the appellant on two grounds. Firstly, he argued with vehemence that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond doubt that the house from which the opium was alleged to be recovered was in exclusive and conscious possession of the appellant or that he was residing in the said house and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside only on this ground. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon Mohd. Ajam Khan v. Narcotics Control Bureau, JT 1996(2) SC 636 : 1996 Cr. L.R. (SC) 345 , Rubyana v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 Cr.L.J. 148, Shaikh Mehaboob Basha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1998 Cr.L.J. 171 and Munni @ Somoti v. State of Rajasthan, 2001(4) WLN 214 : 2001 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 492 .

8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above a