1. Appellants Bharat Singh (A-1) and Ashok Kumar (A-2) are in appeal against judgment dated 26.04.2012 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, in file No. 292/Sessions whereby the appellants have been convicted under sections 21 and 23 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for (short the NDPS Act) and order dated 27.04.2012, whereby each of the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years and pay a fine of one lac rupees. It is ordered also that in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer imprisonment for a period of five years.

Heard. We have perused the record.

3. Facts of the prosecution case, briefly, are that in the night intervening 30th and 31st January, 1998, the appellants were accosted by an Army Surveillance (Naka) Party in an island (GR 538613) in the Chenab River and 27 packets allegedly containing heroin each weighing 1 kg, 01 packet allegedly containing 150 gms. opium, 01 shawl, 02 rubber tubes, 1.23 bore revolver and 50 rounds of ammunition were recovered from them. The Surveillance Team apprehend the appellants and took possession of the recovered substances from them. The Army Authorities informed the Customs Authorities at Akhnoor about the incident. On this information, as per the prosecution case, the Customs Authorities constituted a team of Customs staff headed by a Superintendent, Customs. The Customs Authorities took possession of the substances allegedly recovered from the appellants, except the arms and ammunition, in terms of section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and arrested the appellants on 03.02.1998. On sample testing, the Customs Authorities found that the 27 packets were containing heroin and 01 packet weighing 150 gms was opium.

4. After completing the proceedings in which inter alia statements of the appellants in terms of section 108 of the Customs Act were also recorded, Inspector Customs, PW P.C. Bhardwaj, filed complaint in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jammu against the appellants alleging commission of offence under sections 21 and 23 of the NDPS Act by them.

5. Learned Sessions Judge, Jammu upon consideration of the record of the case and documents submitted in support of the complaint vide his order dated 29.07.1998 framed charge under sections 21 and 23 of the NDPS Act against the appellants(accused). Appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried, prosecution entered its evidence and produced eight witnesses before the trial court, namely, i) Sub. Rashpal Singh, ii) Capt. Sushil Kumar, iii) Jatinder Yadav, Inspector, Customs, iv) P. C. Bhardwaj, Inspector, Customs, v) Balvinder Singh, Inspector, Customs, vi) Ram Prasad, Superintendent, Central Excise, vii) Naib Sub. Jageer Singh and viii) Col. Pardeep Narayain. Besides, prosecution also tendered the chemical analysis report received from Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), New Delhi in terms of section 510 Cr.P.C. and the defence cross-examined the author of the report Dr. Y.K. Singh, Joint Director, CRCL. Learned trial court recorded statements of the appellants in terms of section 342 Cr.P.C. who, however, did not lead any evidence.

6. Learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 26.04.2012 recorded its satisfaction that prosecution had been able to prove commission of offences under sections 21 and 23 NDPS Act against the appellants(accused); convicted them and vide order dated 27.04.2012 impose the sentence. Hence this appeal.

7. At the outset, we on reading the impugned judgment cannot but express our disillusion on noticing the manner in which learned Judge of the trial court dealt with the matter before recording conviction and imposing sentence in a serious matter like this. We may state briefly, that the learned Judge of the trial court has prefaced the judgment with a declaration that the judgment will set at rest the 'challan of police' under sections 22 and 23 of NDPS Act in total disregard of the fact that prosecution