1. In this appeal, the appellant has assailed judgment dated 29th November, 2011 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Ramban, by which the appellant has been convicted/sentenced to ten years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1.00 lac (Rupees One Lac) for the alleged commission of offence under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, 1985.

2. Appellant has stated in memo of appeal that a false and frivolous case FIR No. 12/2008 dated 24th January, 2008 came to be registered against the appellant at Police Station, Banihal. In the aforesaid FIR, the appellant has falsely been implicated, whereby he was shown to be in possession of two polythene bags, one containing 11 pieces of maize wraps containing Charas, and the other containing charas in the form of powder. He was on his way to sell the same at Banihal. It was also alleged by the Police concerned that on receipt of the Docket, a case was registered vide FIR No.12/2008 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, 1985 and the appellant was charge-sheeted by the Court below vide order dated 11th April, 2008 for the commission of the aforesaid offence, which was denied by the appellant. The Investigating Officer is silent regarding the source of information. The appellant was wrongly charge-sheeted, which was denied by the appellant and after framing of the charge, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-

1. Ghulam Mohd. Runyal ASI PW-1

2. Sher Singh Follower PW-2

3. Manshad Ahmed S.P.O PW-3

4. Bashir Ahmed PW-4

5. Mushtaq Ahmed PW-5

6. Mohd. Afzal PW-6

7. Jatinder Mishra PW-7

8. Pawan Abrol PW-8

9. Abid Hussain Rafiqi PW-9

3. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and also not mentioned the case laws, which the appellant’s counsel had produced in support of his arguments and returned the finding, which is not based on the facts of the case. The Court below has also not appreciated the evidence on record while passing the judgment, by virtue of which the appellant has been convicted for ten years with a fine of Rs. 1.00 lac, which is legally nonest and the procedure, which the police agency had adopted for involving the appellant is in violation of the Section 50, 67 and other mandatory provisions of Section 42 and 57 of the NDPS Act and Sections 55 to 57, 8, 15 and 51.

4. It is worthwhile to mention here that the statement recorded on behalf of the prosecution are contradictory to each other and the contradiction in detail is being explained as under:-

That the prosecution witness No.1, who is himself complainant in the present challan and is also Searching Officer and is himself stating in the statement that he has searched the accused without taking the consent from him that whether the search be made by any Gazetted Officer and furthermore, he stated that the accused (appellant herein) has not been searched in presence of any witness. The Charas has been seized and recovered by the complainant without adhering to the procedure prescribed by law and has violated the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the DNDPS Act. This is clear cut violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as it has not been complied with, which is mandatory under NDPS Act.

5. It is submitted that the story made by the prosecution is false and frivolous, which is not being supported by the statement of the prosecution witnesses. On appreciation of evidence, it becomes abundantly clear that where the charas was allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellant was thickly populated and the minimum, which was expected from the prosecution was to ensure fairness by associating some locals, which was not done and rendered the whole recovery doubtful and the Trial Court fell in error in appreciating this aspect of the matter, as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

6. It is also submitted that the impugned judgment is bad in the eye of law as the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the pol