JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that this appeal may kindly be accepted, the judgment of the learned Session Judge Paragraph dated 9.4.1990 be set aside and quashed and so also the conviction, and the accused appellant be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.”

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment, dated 09.04.1990, passed by the Sessions Court, Pratapgarh whereby the appellant were convicted for the offence under Sections 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and were sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh, in default of payment of which he was to undergo further 2 years R.I.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is the version of the prosecution that an alleged recovery of 1.300 k.g. morphine was made from the appellant on 12.04.1988 in the morning hours of Rajpuriya Barrier on the Mandsore – Pratapgarh Road from the dicky/toolbox of a motor cycle. And that, it was alleged that the appellant was seen coming towards nakabandi conducted by P.W. 7 Inspector, Narcotics-Neemach, Shri Surendra Sharma while he was on patrolling duty and apprehended the appellant while he was driving his motorcycle, bearing vehicle no. RNJ-7723, towards Pratapgarh and made the recovery of morphine of 1.3kg from a bag weighing 200 gms. And that, the sample of 10 gms. was taken from the contraband and the remaining 1.290 kg crude morphine was sealed. Thereafter, the report, at Ex. P/4, was lodged with P.W.3 Basant Kumar Mogra, the District Opium Officer, Pratapgarh.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction is challenged on the basis that there is a complete absence of linked evidence to show that the F.S.L. report, at Ex. P/8, which pertains to the alleged contraband seized from the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that although it was stated in the F.I.R. that the contraband of 1.290 kg was sealed, whether the sample of 10 grams was sealed was not mentioned.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that P.W. 7 Surendra Sharma averred that the appellant was produced before the concerned Magistrate on 12.04.1988 and lodged him at Police Station, Pratapgarh and that the seized substance was deposited ith the in-charge of the said police station, who in turn made an entry into the Roznamcha. However, neither was the entry signed by the witness nor was an receipt of the same obtained. And that, the said officer in charge was not produced as a witness before the learned Court below nor was the roznamcha entry placed into evidence.

7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, and submits that the learned Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction after looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidences placed on record before it.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the contentions made on behalf of the appellant herein are without merit, and do not adversely affect the impugned order of conviction. It is submitted that with regard to the chain of custody of the evidence i.e. the link of the evidence has been established and dealt with by the learned Court below in the impugned order at Paragraph 9, wherein the the testimony of P.W.7 Narcotics Inspector Surendra Sharma was carefully examined, wherein the due process of seizing, sealing and sending the sample of the recovered contraband for F.S.L. was stated, and at Paragraph 16, wherein the due process of intimating his superior officer, in the present case being P.W. 10 Inspector Narcotics, Pratapgarh, Shri Dilip Singh Jain, vide the report, at Ex. P/4 was complied with, and the testimony of the said superior officer also reveals that the chain of custody of the seized contraband morphine, was maintained throughout and the seal was intact from the ti