IMPORTANT POINTS
Contraband--Search and Seizure--The provisions of Section 55 are directory in nature. The appellant required to prove that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, caused prejudice to him.
Contraband--Non joining of independent witness--Prosecution story cannot be thrown out, on the ground, that an independent witness had not been examined, by the prosecution.

Sham Sunder, J.:-This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 09.09.1995, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Karnail Singh, for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’ only) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten 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 two years.

2. The facts, in brief are that, on 30.11.1993, Ram Murti, Inspector, then posted as Incharge CIA Staff, Samrala, alongwith other police officials was going in connection with patrol duty, and when the policy party was at some distance from the seepage drain of Budha in the area of village Labangarh, the accused was found sitting, on the right side of the road, near the heap of fodder (parali) under-neath the trees. On seeing the police party, he tried to slip away. On suspicion, he was apprehended. Ram Murti, Inspector, interrogated him, who on interrogation disclosed that he had concealed four bags of poppy-husk under neath the heap of fodder (parali), and was setting right the fodder (parali). Thereafter, the search of fodder (parali) was conducted, in accordance with the provisions of law. 4 bags, containing 35 kgs poppy-husk each, were recovered from under-neath the heap of the fodder (parali). Two samples of 250 grams from each bag, were separated. The remaining poppy-husk was put into the same bags. The samples, and the bags of the remaining poppy-husk, were converted into parcels, duly sealed with the seal bearing impression ‘RM’, and taken into possession vide a separate memo. On personal search of the accused, currency note of Rs.27/-, were recovered. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, the FIR was recorded. Visual site plan of the place of recovery, was prepared. The accused was arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. 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 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 Sohan Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-1), Ram Murti, Inspector (PW-2), Sarup Singh, AMHC (PW-3), and Sudagar Singh, Constable (PW-4). Thereafter, the Addl. PP for the State, tendered into evidence report of the Assistant Chemical Examiner Ex.PU, and closed the same.

5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. However, he did not examine any witness, in his defence.

6. After hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced accused Karnail Singh, 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 parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

9. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, contended that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the conscious possession of the accused, in respect of four bags, containing 35 kgs poppy-husk each, especially, when the alleged recovery was effected from the open place. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The bags, containin