1. - This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.RC. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.3.2003 passed by Special Judge NDPS Cases, Jodhpur (for short "the trial court" hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 29/2000 whereby the trial court convicted appellant Dana Ram for the offence under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) and sentenced him to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that PW-4 Dy. S.R Anil Kumar received a secret information vide Ex.P/9 on 15.3.2000 at 7.00 AM at Chauhtan to the effect that contraband heroin has been smuggled from Pakistan and it is hidden somewhere which will be taken out by appellant Danaram. On this information PW-2 Dy.S.R Anil Kumar, PW-1 ASI Motiram, PW-2 Circle Inspector Awardan, PW-5 Constable Swaroop Singh and PW-9 Constable Hakam Singh went to BSF post, Bhanda where they met Jiyalal and one Jai Singh, both BSF personnel, who were patrolling the border near fencing. It is alleged that a person started running from the side of Khejri tree having a plastic bag in hand. He was caught hold. On being asked, he disclosed his name as Danaram, present appellant. The bag was searched and on search it was found containing 17 small bags. He was served with a notice under Section 50 of the Act vide Ex.P/6. On having (been) served with the notice under Section 50 of the Act, the appellant gave consent vide Ex.P/2. He was searched and a seizure memo Ex.P/4 was prepared.

3. After usual investigation the police filed challan against the appellant for the offence under Section 8/21 of the Act. The prosecution adduced the evidence by producing as many as 9 witnesses and documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/18. The appellant made statement under Section 313 Cr.RC. and denied the allegation. The trial court, at the conclusion of the trial and appreciation of evidence, found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 8/21 of the Act and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced as noticed above.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor, perused the judgment and order of the trial court and scanned, scrutinised and evaluated the evidence on record.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are serious contradictions with regard to the place where the appellant was found standing. It was further contended that the prosecution case became more doubtful for want of independent Motbirs. Learned counsel further contended that in the seizure memo Ex.P/4 the column captioned time has been left blank deliberately. He assailed Ex.P/4 on the ground that search was conducted vide Ex.P/4 prior to giving notice to the appellant under Section 50 of the Act. Thus the search and seizure were made without compliance of Section 50 of the Act. It was further contended that the secret information alleged to have been received by PW-4 Dy.S.R Anil Kumar vide Ex.P/9 does not disclose the place where the contraband heroin was alleged to have been kept as also there is no mention of the place where the person was informed to be found. The area of village Bhanda is in (a) number of kilometers. Thus the very secret information Ex.P/9 is vague and that could not have given a specific direction to the investigating agency to visit to a particular place. It was further contended that the investigating agency did not make any attempt to search the place where the contraband was alleged to have been placed. Learned counsel further contended that the seized articles have not been produced in the trial court during the trial and as such the article contraband has neither been produced in the c