JUDGMENT :

1. These Criminal Appeals have been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. claiming for the following reliefs:-

In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 121/1989

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the accused appellant may be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.”

In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 172/1989

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be accepted and the order of the seizure and confiscation of the Jeep to the State may be set aside and it may be ordered to be given back to the registered owner of the Jeep.”

2. The above-numbered criminal appeal No.121/1989 has been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 31.08.1989, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 90/1987 whereby the appellants-Jagpal Singh @ Ranka, Bhepa Ram and Satya Narayan were convicted under Section 8/18 N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and Section 3/25 Arms Act, 1959; for the offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act, each were sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of the same, they were to undergo further 3 years R.I. and; for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, each were sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of which they were to undergo further imprisonment of 1 month.

2.1 The above-numbered criminal appeal No.172/1989 under Section 454 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against that part of the aforementioned impugned judgment, whereby the articles in question were ordered to be seized.

3. The controversy in the present matters is common, and the brief facts of the same as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellants are that on 14.07.1987, the investigating officer Shivlal Joshi, P.W. 12 apprehended the accused-appellants (in criminal appeal No.121/1989), upon receiving information on the telephone from one D.Bhattacharya, the then A.S.I. Narcotics Department, Neemuch, that a vehicle travelling from Neemuch to Nimbaheda, at about 01:05 a.m. in the night in a green coloured Jeep with about 3/4 suspicious persons. And that, upon receipt of such information, a recovery of 10 kilograms opium and firearms was made by the police party. And that, subsequently upon completion of investigation against the accused-appellants (in criminal appeal No.121/1989), charges were framed against them for the offences under Sections 8/18 N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and Section 3/25 Arms Act, 1959, and they were convicted and sentenced, alongwith the order of seizure of the articles in question, as above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Court below has erred in passing the impugned judgment of conviction against the appellants (in criminal appeal No.121/1989), as they were falsely implicated under the charges for the offences against which they have been convicted, being Sections 8/18 N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, 1959.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the learned Court below has incorrectly fastened the conviction, as aforementioned, upon the accused-appellants merely on the basis of the police witnesses, and that, recovery witnesses P.W.2 Shambhu Lal, P.W. 4 Ram Chander and P.W.5 Jagdish have turned hostile and not supported the version of the prosecution.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the learned Court below has not taken into consideration the fact that the statutory compliance, as mandated under Section 57 N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 has not been made and therefore the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the samples were unsealed and that the seals were either broken or the recoveries so made, alleged to have been made from the accused-appellants, are false and fabricated.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the recovery witness P.W. 4 Ramcha