1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

1. The Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Hindaun City, District Sawai Madhopur has convicted and sentenced the appellant Bhagat Singh as under -

Under Section 8/18 NDPS Act - To 20 years R.l. and a fine of Rs. 2,50,000/-, in default of payment of fine of further undergo 3 years R.l.

Under Section 8/20 NDPS Act - To 20 years R.I., and a fine of Rs. 2,50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 years R.l.
Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.

2. The contraband weighing 83.500 Kg. Opium and 150 Kg. Charas were recovered in the present case vide recovery memo Ex.R 15 dated 12.7.97 from the house, as shown in site plan (Ex.R5), which was in exclusive possession of the appellant.

3. On 12.7.97 a secret information (Ex.R27) was received by PW11 Vijay Singh Meena, Superintendent, Narcotics Bureau, Kota to the effect that appellant Bhagat Singh deals in the business of opium and charas and in case the house of Bhagat Singh, which is in his possession, is raided then it could lead to recovery of opium and charas. On the basis of the said information a raid party was formed which went to visit the house in possession of appellant. The appellant was found available at the said house. The notice under Section 50 of the Act was given to the appellant for the search of the said house. Two independent witnesses were called and a search was conducted. The contraband as mentioned above was recovered from the house of the appellant.

4. The Investigating Officer investigated the matter and after receipt of FSL Report and completion of the investigation, a complaint was filed in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, District Sawai Madhopur against 3 accused persons namely Ram Murti, Shiv Kumar @ Shiv Singh and present appellant under Section 8/18, 8/20, 25 and 29 of the Act.

5. The trial Court framed the charge against appellant for the offence under Section 8/18 and 8/20 of the Act, against accused Shiv Kumar @ Shiv Singh for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Act and against co-accused Ram Murti for the offence under Section 25 of the Act. All the accused persons denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In support of the case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced documentary evidence Ex.R1 to Ex.P29. Thereafter statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.RC. and in defence DW 1 Khubi Ram and DW 2 Bhagat Singh Indolia were examined.

6. During the pendency of the trial co-accused Ram Murti died and as such proceeding was dropped against him on 20.1.2003. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments of both the parties acquitted the co-accused Shiv Kumar @ Shiv Singh from the offence under Section 8/18 of the Act but convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as mentioned above.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. V.R. Bajwa contended that learned trial court has committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused appellant for the above offences. He referred all the relevant exhibits as well as statement of the prosecution witnesses from PW1 to PW11. He contended that the prosecution failed to prove the exclusive possession of the appellant over house from where recovery of contraband was made. The trial court wrongly recorded a finding to the effect that the said house was in exclusive possession of the appellant. The said house was admittedly of the ownership of the co-accused Ram Murty and co-accused Ram Murti wrongly stated that the said house was let out to the appellant. He contended that no rent note was produced to show that house was let out to appellant by owner of the house namely Ram Murty. He further contended that there was no description of the house in secret information Ex.R27. He also pointed out number of contradictions in oral as well as documentary evidence in respect of exclusive possession of the house of the appellant. He also contended that the learned