Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 2.4,1997, and the order of sentence of the even date, rendered by the Additional sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Raj Bahadur, for the offence, punishable under Sec.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as the act only) and sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period often years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000 and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of one year, for having been found in possession of 40 Kgs.250 grams poppy husk (now falling within the ambit of non-commercial quantity), without any permit or licence.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 21.2.1994, Raj Singh, ASI, along with other police officials, was going in Govt. Canter from the side of village Ghal Kalan, towards village Safu Wala, via metalled road, and when the police party reached near the bridge of canal minor, in the revenue estate of village Ghal Kalan, the accused came from the opposite side, on the bank of the canal, with a gunny bag, on his head. On seeing the police party, he tried to retreat, but was apprehended, on suspicion. The search of the bag was conducted, in accordance with the provisions of law, as a result whereof 40 kgs.250 grams crushed poppy husk was recovered therefrom. A sample of 250 grams poppy husk, was separated therefrom, and the remaining poppy husk, was put into the same bag. The sample, and the remaining poppy husk, were converted into parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, the formal FIR was registered. The accused was arrested. Rough site plan of the place of recovery, with correct marginal notes, was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.

3. On appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Sec.15 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Bhupinder Singh, HC PW1, witness to the recovery, Kashmir Singh, SHO, pw2, before whom the accused was produced by the Investigating Officer. Raj singh, ASI PW3, the Investigating Officer, and Surinder Pal Singh, Constable PW4, who tendered into evidence, affidavit Ex. PH. Thereafter, the Additional Public prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.

5. The statement of the accused under sec. 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however examined Naranjan Singh DW1 and Gurcharan Singh DW2, in his defence. Thereafter, he closed the defence evidence.

6. After hearing the Additional Public prosecutor for the State, the counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore.

7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the accused/appellant.

8. When the appeal was fixed for regular hearing, on the Board of this Bench, and a due notice, in this regard, had been issued to the counsel for the appellant, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Under these circumstances, no alternative was left, with this Court, than to decide the appeal, on merits, after going through the record, and the evidence, as also hearing the counsel for the respondent, as that amounted to due compliance of the provisions of Sections.385 and 386 Cr. P. C. in view of the ratio of law, laid down, in Dharam Pal V/s. State of u. P.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent, and have