Contraband--No adverse inference could be drawn, against the prosecution, on account of non-examination of, public witness.
Contraband--Representative samples--Recovery of 780 poppy plants--20 taken as representative sample and sent to FSL--It could not be said that remaining plants were not of poppy plants.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 14.7.1995, and the order of sentence dated 15.7.1995, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Ram Sarup, for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & 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 lac, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of three, years.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 25.3.1994, Siri Dutt, ASI, along with Zile Singh, Constable, and other police officials, was present at Phavra Singh Chowk, Town No. 1, Faridabad, in connection with patrolling, when Ram Parkash, met him. Meanwhile, a secret information was received against the Ram Sarup (accused), Mali, of Faridabad Complex Administration, to the effect that he had planted 700-800 poppy plants, along with other flowering plants, in the beds of flowers, in the area of Govt. Water Works. A raiding party was constituted, and a raid was conducted at Water Works. Ram Sarup, accused, was found watering the plants. It was found that the accused had planted poppy plants at 2-3 places of the land of Government Tubewell. Photographer was called, who took four snaps of the scene of recovery. On counting, 780 plants of poppy, were found to be in existence. 20 plants were uprooted and taken as sample. The sample and the remaining plants were made into two separate parcels, duly sealed with the seal bearing impression SDS. The seal after use was handed over to Ram Parkash. The case property was taken into possession, vide recovery memo Ex. PC. The height of the plants was ranging between 2 to 4. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, formal FIR was registered. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. Rough site plan was prepared. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.

3. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Section 18 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial.

4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Inder Jit, Photographer PW1, who took the snaps Ex. P1 to P4, of the scene of recovery. Rajinder Singh, Head Constable, PW2, Narender Singh, Constable PW3, Siri Dutt, ASI PW4, Ramesh Pal, In-spector/SHO, Police Station Central Faridabad PW5, and Zile Singh, Head Constable PW6. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the same.

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: It was stated by the accused, that he was working as Mali-cum-Chowkidar, at the relevant time, in the Faridabad Complex Administration. He, however, stated that one Rameshwar, was working as Head Mali, and had planted the seeds of various flowering plants. He further stated that he did not know, as to what was planted by him. He further stated that he was not aware that those plants were of poppy. He also stated that he had been working as Mali for the last 3-4 years, and prior to that he used to do labour work. He, however, did not lead any defence evidence.

6. After hearing the 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. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parti