The recovery of contraband from the accused's possession, coupled with the failure to explain its possession, leads to the presumption of guilt under Section 54 of the Act.

SURINDER SINGH,J

The appellant was convicted by the learned trial Court in Sessions Trial No.3 of 2009, on 1.4.2010, for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short “the Act”, allegedly for keeping in possession Charas i.e. 38.10 % weight-in-weight resin of Cannabis plant in the recovered stuff of 750 grams, thus sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of `30,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

2. In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. On 12.12.2008, PW6 ASI Daya Ram of Police Station Manali was heading a police patrolling party. At about 7 p.m., when they were crossing the ‘Prini bridge’, they noticed the appellant walking on foot, who on seeing the police party tried to move quickly and took out an polythene envelope from his jacket and threw it towards ‘Nali” on the side of the road. On suspicion, police apprehended him. The police did not find passerby to include them as a search witness(s), as such PW1 C. Rajan Kumar was sent to call independent witnesses from the nearby place, but no one was available, even a motorist refused to become a witness, hence HC Narain Chand and PW1 C. Rajan Kumar were associated as witnesses to the search of the accused. Before that ASI Daya Ram rendered himself to be searched by the accused person in presence of the aforesaid witnesses, but nothing incriminating was found and a memo Ex.PA to this effect was prepared. Thereafter, the polythene packet which was thrown in the ‘Nali’ by the accused was picked up. It was bearing the mark ‘Oswal’, which was containing Charas in the form of small flattened pieces. It was weighed and it turned out to be 750 grams.

3. Two samples of 25 grams each were separated from the recovered stuff, for analysis and each of the samples were sealed with seal producing the impression of English alphabet ‘H. The remaining bulk was also sealed with the same seal. The sample of seal was separately taken on a piece of cloth and one of such sample is Ex.PB.

4. The police prepared the NCB forms in triplicate, one of such forms is Ex.PH. The facsimile of the sale was also put on such form.

5. The case property was seized vide memo Ex.PC in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses, one copy of the seizure memo was given to the accused free of cost.

6. Ruqa Ex.PR was sent to the Police Station through PW1 Constable Rajan Kumar, for the registration of the case, which culminated into FIR Ex.PE.

7. Site plan of the place of recovery was also prepared. The appellant was arrested and he was informed of the grounds of his arrest vide memo Ex.PD.

8. The appellant as well as case property were produced before PW2 SI/SHO Om Parkash. He resealed each of the parcels with his own seal producing the impression of English letter “M”. The specimen of the seal was also taken on a piece of cloth Ex.PG and facsimile thereof was also put against column No.9 of NCB forms Ex.PH. Columns No.9 to 11 of the NCB forms were filled in by PW2 aforesaid under his stamp and signature. Thereafter, the case property was handed over to PW4 MHC Mohinder Singh to deposit the same in the Malkhana. After its deposit, he made an entry in the Malkhana register, copy of which is Ex.PN.

9. On 15.12.2008, one of the sample parcels was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory Junga for its examination through PW5 C. Om Parkash alongwith copy of FIR, sample of seals and NCB forms in triplicate, to which he deposited it vide RCNo.199/08, copy of which is Ex.PO. On its return, he handed over the receipt on R.C. to the MHC aforesaid.

10. Special report Ex.PM was prepared and sent to the SDPO Manali, within the statutory period, which was received by PW3 HC Sher Singh, who made entry in the relevant register and placed it before the SDPO aforesaid.

11. On analysis in the Laboratory, the sample parcel tested positive fo