The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove conscious possession and the importance of investigating transportation and ownership of prohibited substances in cases involving the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act.

Baldev Singh, J.

1. Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha son of Hazura Singh, resident of Village Bhima, Police Station, Rori, District Sirsa (Haryana) has filed this appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order, both dated December 22, 1999, passed by Sh. A.S. Kathuria, the then Judge, Special Court (Additional Sessions Judge), Mansa, in the case, First Information Report No. 13 dated January 26, 1995, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act), registered at Police Station Sardulgarh.

2. The appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve years and to pay rupees one lac as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

3. The prayer made in this appeal is to set aside the impugned judgment and the sentence order by acceptance of this appeal and to acquit the appellant of the charge framed against him under Section 15 of the Act.

4. The facts of the prosecution case are that on January 26, 1995, Gurdeep Singh, Inspector/Station House Officer of Police Station Sardulgarh along with other police officials went for patrolling, in a government vehicle, bearing registration No. PB-03-3104. When then vehicle took a turn towards Village Ahlupur, P.W. Ranjit Singh son of Inder Singh resident of Village Makhawala had been joined in the police party. When they reached about 1 Km ahead of Village Khehra Khurd, they spotted the appellant sitting on bags lying in a field on the left side on the road. On seeing the police party, the appellant tried to conceal himself by taking a lying position on the bags. He was apprehended on suspicion. Six bags containing poppy husk were recovered, on which he was sitting. On inquiry, the appellant disclosed his name as Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha son of Hazura Singh resident of Village Bhima. Iqbal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, was summoned at the spot by sending him wireless message. In his presence, 100 gms poppy husk was taken out as sample from each bag. Before drawing the samples, each bag was weighed and 32 Kgs of poppy husk was found in each bag. The samples were sealed by Gurdeep Singh, Inspector, with his seal bearing impression of letters `GS. The remaining poppy husk was sealed in the same bags with the same seal. The samples and the bags were taken into possession vide recovery memo Exhibit P.A. It was attested by Iqbal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ranjit Singh and Jang Singh, Sub Inspector. Sample of the seal was also prepared. The appellant was formally arrested vide vide memo Exhibit P.E. Site plan Exhibit P.D. was prepared showing the place of recovery. Ruqa Exhibit P.C. was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which First Information Report was registered. Exhibit P.C/1 is copy of the First Information Report. The case property was brought to the Police Station and it was deposited in the `Malkhana. The appellant was also confined in the lock up of the Police Station. On the next day, Gurdeep Singh, Inspector, produced the samples and the bags of poppy husk before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mansa vide application Exhibit P.G. and the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate ordered that the said incriminating material be deposited in the `Malkhana. The samples were later on sent to the Chemical Examiner, Patiala, whose report Exhibit P.H was received. The contents of the samples were found crushed poppy heads (poppy husk). On completion of the investigation, challan was put in the Court against the appellant.

5. The Ilaqa Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Special Court empowered under the Act to try the offence.

6. Charge was framed under Section 15 of the Act against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. The prosecution, at the trial, examined four witnesses, namely, PW-1 Gurdeep Singh, Inspector