The charge against the appellant must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and compliance with legal provisions, such as Section 50 of the Act, is essential for a valid conviction.

Surjit Singh, J. - Appellant Moti Ram is aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.7.2005 of the trial Court, whereby he has been convicted for an offence, under Section 20 (B) of the Narcotic, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay fine of Rs. 60,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year.

2. Police instituted a case against the appellant by submitting a report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that on 1.2.2003, around 6.30 a.m., when S.I. Laljit Singh, accompanied by HC Harbans Kumar and LHC Sunil Kumar and other police officials, was present at a place called Sambha, within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Banjar, the appellant was seen coming from Niharni side and on seeing the police, he got unnerved and that aroused the suspicion of the said Sub-Inspector The Sub-Inspector deputed a constable, named Anup Ram, who was accompanying him, to arrange for some independent local witnesses. However, no local witness was available. Thereafter the said Sub-Inspector informed the appellant that he suspected that he (the appellant) was carrying sonic narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and, therefore, it was intended to search his person and that he had a statutory right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer of the departments specified in Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, or some Magistrate and, in case he so desired, the search of his person could be arranged in the presence of any such Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate The appellant opted for being searched on the spot by the said Sub-Inspector. Thereafter the Sub-Inspector got his own person searched from the appellant in the presence of the above-named H.C. and L.H.C. Nothing was recovered during his (Sub-Inspectors) personal search. Then the person of the appellant was searched and Charas, which on being weighed was found to be 600 grams, was recovered from one of the pockets of his coat, which was wearing. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were separated. Search and seizure memo was prepared. A report of search and seizure was prepared and sent to Police Station, Banjar for the formal registration of case. The recovered Charas and the two sealed packets containing the samples were deposited with, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Banjar, who affixed his own seal on the sample packets as also the bulk Charas and deposited the same with the MHC. One of the two samples was sent to the Chemical Examiner. He gave the report that the contents of the sample were of Charas.

3. The trial Court framed the charge, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act against the appellant and on his pleading not guilty, put him on trial. At the end of the trial, the appellant was held guilty and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

4. Appellants Grievance is that the evidence on record does not prove the charge against him and, therefore, he is entitled to acquittal. The learned Counsel for the appellant, while addressing the argument besides assailing the conviction, argued in the alternative that in case the Court felt that the charge stood proved, the punishment awarded by the trial Court being too harsh, looking to the social background of the appellant and the quantity of the Charas, which was admittedly non-commercial, was required to be reduced substantially.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record, I feel inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that the evidence on record does not prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

6. It may be stated at the very outset that Sub-Inspector Laljit Singh died before his statement could be recorded by the trial Court. The prosecution examined HC Harbans Kumar (PW-1) and LHC Sunil Kumar (PW-2) to prove th