Contraband--Deliberate and intentional breach of the provisions of Section 55 of the Act cannot be condoned.
Examination of accused--Accused, is not require to prove his defence version, beyond a reasonable doubt--The preponderance of probability, can be said to be sufficient, to prove such a plea.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 18.12.1998, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Mukesh and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten 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 two years for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as `the Act only) for having been found in possession of 20 kilograms of poppy husk, without any permit or licence.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 26-03-1995, Inspector Murari Lal, (PW-9) while being posted as SHO of Police Station, Fatehabad received a wireless message, from police control room Hisar, for holding a picket on Bhuna Fatehabad Road. In pursuance of this message, he along with Head Constable, Dharampal, PW-8, Constable Rakesh Kumar, PW-5 and other police officials held the picket, on Bhuna Hisar Road. At about 4.15 p.m., Mukesh- accused, was seen coming on a scooter, without having number plate, from the side of Bhuna, carrying a bag tied on the pillion. He was apprehended. On search of the bag, in accordance with the provisions of law, 20 kilograms of poppy husk, was recovered. A sample was taken out, and the remaining poppy husk, was put into the same bag. The sample and the bag were converted into parcels, sealed, and thereafter taken into possession vide memo Ex.PE, attested by the witnesses. Ruqa Ex.PG was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, FIR Ex.PH, was recorded. Site plan exhibit PJ of the place of recovery was prepared, with correct marginal notes. The accused was arrested. 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 Section 15 of the Act, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Nasib Singh, PW-1, Jaswant Kaur, PW-2, Ram Chander, ASI, PW-3, Mange Ram, D.S.P., PW-4, Rakesh Kumar, Constable, PW-5, Mam Chand, Inspector, PW-6, Mukesh Chand, Constable, PW-7, Dharampal, Head Constable, PW-8 and Murari Lal, Inspector, PW-9. Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.

5. The statement of the accused under Section 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. It was stated by him that Niranjan Singh, Constable had raised a loan of Rs.7500/-, from him, and when he demanded the same, from him, he refused to pay the amount, and threatened, to involve him in a false case. It was further stated by him, that some other accused, was arrested from the Dhani of Harnam Singh carrying 40 kilograms of Poppy Husk, out of which, 20 kilograms poppy husk was planted against that accused and the remaining 20 kilograms was planted against him. The accused examined Virender Singh, Naib Moharrir, DW 1, and Constable Indraj Singh, DW-2, in his defence.

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 correctness and legality of the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, the instant appeal, was filed by the accused/appellant.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

9. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that no independent witness was joined by the Investigating O