Possession of contraband without a license or authority under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 leads to conviction under the relevant sections.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and order impugned dated 15.11.2018 passed by the Learned Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Hanumangarh, in Session Case No. 06/2017, may kindly be set aside and quashed and appellant may set at liberty."

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the order, dated 15.11.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 06/2017 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 8(c) read with Section 22(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act 1985 ("the Act of 1985") and sentenced to 15 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, in default of payment of which he was to undergo further 1 year's R.I.

3. Brief facts of the case, as revealed from a perusal of the record, are that on 28.10.2016, at about 01:05 p.m. the then S.H.O. Sub-Inspector Ranveer Singh were travelling along with other police officials in a Jeep, and that when they were at the Civil Line Industrial Area, they saw a man with a plastic bag acting suspiciously, and upon seeing the police team, attempted to flee from the scene. And that, when he was apprehended, he revealed his name to be Pawan Kumar R/o. Hanumangarh aged about 29 years i.e. the present accused-appellant, who upon being questioned about the contents of the plastic bag he was carrying with him, he gave an unsatisfactory reply, and when the contents of the same were checked, several packets of tablets were found. And subsequently, in the presence of motbir witnesses, the accused appellant was given notice under Section 50 of the Act of 1985, and upon his consent and signing of such notice, a search of his person was conducted and 15,000 pink tablets in 25 boxes, were found. And that, when the same were checked by Mr. Prem Singh, the concerned medicine control officer, the same were found to be Alprazolam tablets I.P. 0.5 m.g. (Prozolam - 0.5) B.N. NHN - 117 MFG July 2015 Exp. JUN. 2018 M.R.P. Rs. 20/- PER 10 TABS, INCL ALL TAXES. Composition-Each uncoated tablet contains: Alprazolam LP. 0.5 m.g. Excipients q.s. colour: Erythrosine Manufactured in India by: Neutec Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. E-698, DSIDC Narela, Industrial Area, Delhi - 110040, were found. And that, no license or authority to carry the same was produced by the appellant. Upon being weighed on an electronic weighing scale, each tablet was found to weigh 240 milligrams and the total contraband was found to weigh about 3.6 kgs. From the tablets so seized, from one box, two samples of 50 tablets each were taken and placed in a plastic bag which was then placed in a cloth bag, and were sealed, and the stamp/mark was placed. Therefore, of the 25 boxes, 24 boxes containing 600 tablets each, and 1 box containing 500 tablets, the remainder after taking the samples out, totalling 14,900 tablets were placed in a plastic bag and then in a cloth bag, and were sealed, upon which the requisite stamp/mark was placed. And upon following the requisite due process of law under Section 52 of the Act of 1985, the accused appellant was arrested and taken into custody, and was questioned and a report was generated under Section 67 of the Act of 1985. And that, the investigating officer filed a charge-sheet against the accused appellant (Pawan Kumar) and one Gaurav Kumar @ Vishal @ Gauru for the offences under Sections 8/21, 22, 29 Act of 1985. And that, thereafter, the learned Court below framed charges against the accused for the offence under Section 8/22 of the Act of 1985. And that, of the two accused, the learned Court below while acquitting Gaurav Kumar @ Vishal @ Gauru of all the charges levelled against him therein, convicted and sentenced the present appellant, as above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case has been falsely foisted upon the appellant, and that he has not