Honble MITTAL, J.–This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction of the appellant Chhagan Lal u/S. 8/18, Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh vide his judgment dated 31.1.1996 in Sessions Case No. 176/93.

(2). Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant was travelling in a Roadways bus RNP 605 from Pratapgarh on 11.8.1989. The bus arrived at Octroi Post No.2, Chittorgarh at about 10.30 a.m., which was stopped for checking by Shri Parmanand Acharya, Sub-Inspector, Office of Opium Officer, Chittorgarh Division I. The appellant was sitting on Seat No.37 and he was interrogated on suspicion by Inspector Shri Parmanand Acharya. Shri Parmanand Acharya wanted to take search and therefore the appellant was informed his right u/s. 50 of the Act for taking search in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He gave his consent for taking search by Shri Parmanand Acharya, Sub-Inspector and he found 90 gms. of opium in the pocket of his `Kurta and 4 Kg. 10 gms contraband opium in a plastic bag wrapped in a quilt. Two samples containing 25 gms. contraband opium each were taken and sealed on the spot in the presence of the motbirs. Necessary documents with regard to the search and other formalities were prepared, the statement of the appellant Ex.P/13 was also recorded and after completing the investigation and, on the report of the Public Analyst that the samples contained contraband opium, challan was filed against the appellant.

(3). The appellant denied the charges framed against him u/S. 8, r/w 18 of the Act and stated in his statement u/S. 313 Cr.P.C. that he had no opium in his possession. He did not give any statement to the Inspector Shri Parmanand Acharya. His signatures were forcibly obtained on the papers. The learned Addi- tional Sessions Judge after completing the trial and hearing the arguments found it proved on the basis of the evidence on record that contraband opium was recovered from the possession of the appellant as alleged by the prosecution. Accordingly the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above.

(4). The learned counsel for the appellant has advanced number of arguments about non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sec. 42 & Sec. 50 of the Act and also the lacuna of samples not keeping intact until these were received at the Forensic Science Laboratory. It was also contended that there are material contradiction in the statements of the witnesses and available independent witnesses have not been examined, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that any contraband opium was recovered from the appellant.

(5). The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was not necessary for the prosecution to comply the provisions u/Ss. 42 & 50 of the Act and by the chain of link it has been established that the samples were kept sealed and intact and were deposited in the same condition for chemical analysis.

(6). I shall first discuss the contention on behalf of the appellant about non-compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in Secs. 42 & 50 of the Act because if compliance has not been made of these mandatory provisions then the whole trial and conviction stand vitiated and on this count alone the conviction of the appellant can not be sustained.

(7). I have perused the statements of material witnesses Shri Parmanand Acharya (PW 5), Sub-Inspector, Jwala Singh (PW 4), Bhikam Singh (PW 3) Constables and Hasan Khan (PW 2) Driver of the bus. It is revealed from the above statements that there was no prior information against appellant about carryingcontraband opium while travelling in the bus. Parmanand Acharya (PW 5) has depo- sed that he accompanied by constables had gone for checking of contraband opium on Nimbahera-Neemach Road Octroi Post No.2 and checked the bus in which the appellant was t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document