The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt, the admissibility of evidence, and the application of the legal provisions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J,—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.12.1999 passed by Sessions Judge, Chamba in Sessions Case No. 16 of 1998 convicting the appellant-accused under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment. In order to appreciate the controversy we are herewith giving essential facts:—

2. The accused was put on trial for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act. As per the prosecution story on 18.1.1998 the accused was travelling in Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation (for short HRTC) bus No. HP-37-0330 from Chamba to Mataur. At about 11 a.m. the said bus reached at a place known Drada where it was stopped by Head Constable Satpal (PW-7) for traffic checking. While checking the bus, PW-7 noticed that the accused tried to slip away whereupon he entertained a suspicion against the accused and apprehended him. Dalbir Singh (PW-5) and Dev Raj (PW-6) driver and conductor respectively of the bus wer6 associated by PW-7 in the investigation of the case. PW-7 informed the accused that his personal search had to be carried out and if he so desired he could get himself searched before any gazetted officer or before any Magistrate. The accused offered to be searched before the Police. A search memo. Ext. PE was prepared and then in the presence of PWs 5 and 6, his search was conducted. On search Muffler wrapped around the accuseds waist was found untied from which a leather bag was found. On opening of the leather bag it contained a polythene bag and on opening the same Charas in the shape of Golas (small balls) and Bathes (small sticks) was recovered. On weight of the recovered Charas it was found 2 kgs. Two samples of 25 grams each were taken and sealed into two separate parcels and thereafter the sample parcels so obtained and the remaining Charas were sealed with seal impression K and then the seal was handed over to PW-6. Thereafter, recovery memo (Ext. PF) of taking into possession Charas was prepared after obtaining signatures of the accused and the witnesses PWs 5 and 6 thereon. The accused was also informed about the ground of arrest by memo Ext, PG which was signed by the accused. PW-7 sent ruqua mark Ext. PA to Police Station, Chamba on the basis of which First Information Report Ext. PB was registered at 2 p.m. by Inspector Kishori Lal (PW-1). PW-7 prepared site plan Ext. PJ and the parcel of Charas together with sample parcels were sent to PW-1 who also sealed the said parcels with his own seal mark KU. He then deposited the parcels with Head Constable Chain Singh (PW-3). PW-7 prepared special report Ext. PD and sent the same to the Superintendent of Police, Chamba which was received in his office on 19.1.1998. PW- 3 despatched the sample parcels of Charas through constable Naresh Kumar (PW-2) to the office of Chemical Examiner at Kandaghat. As per the report Ext. PC of the Chemical Examiner the sample analyzed was to be Charas. The accused was also arrested there.

3. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the trial Court the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. The defence of the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that he has been falsely implicated in this case and his signatures were obtained on the documents by the Police under threat. He pleaded innocence. The trial Court on appraisal and scrutiny of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.

4. Being aggrieved, the accused has filed the present appeal challenging the correctness and validity of his conviction and sentence,

5. Mr