The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural provisions and the credibility of evidence in upholding the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

Virender Singh, J. - Hakikat Rai Son of Karan Chand the appellant herein stands convicted under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short to be referred to as the Act) and has been sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one and a half years.

2. In short the case of the prosecution is that on the basis of secret information received on 6.8.1990 by PW8 Inspector Kuldeep Singh of CIA Staff Kaithal to the effect that the present appellant who indulges in large scale in the sale of opium was keeping substantive quantity of opium in his house and the same can be recovered on raid. Ruqa Ex. PB was sent for registration of formal FIR Ex. PB/2 under Section 18 of the Act against the appellant through Constable Chand Singh. Constable Dharambir was also sent to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters requesting him to reach at the spot. It is then the case of the prosecution that thereafter Inspector Kuldeep Singh alongwith Sub Inspector Ronki Ram, ASI Rajinder Singh, ASI Zile Singh alongwith other police officials left the CIA staff in his official Jeep for raiding the house of the appellant. The appellant was found present there. By that time PW7 DSP Kartar Singh had also reached there. DSP Kartar Singh had summoned few public men at the spot. PW6 A.K. Sangwan, Excise and Taxation Officer was also summoned by the police. It is then the case of the prosecution that DSP Kartar Singh interrogated the appellant and on interrogation he disclosed that he had kept concealed 10 kgs of opium in the store of his house in Almirah and the same is wrapped in a glazed paper and except him nobody else had the knowledge of it. The appellant further stated that he could get the same recovered. His disclosure statement Ex.PE was recorded which was signed by him and attested by the police officials including A.K. Sangwan ETO. Thereafter the appellant led the police party to the disclosed places and got the opium recovered after opening the Almirah with the key which he was having his pocket. A sample of 250 grams was separated and the remaining bulk was weighted which found to be 9.750 kgs. Sample and the remaining bulk were separately sealed in the tin box. DSP Kartar Singh put his seal bearing letters KS on the sample and the remaining bulk. The sample seal was prepared and the seal after use was handed over to A.K. Sangwan ETO. The case property was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PE. Other formalities were also done at the spot. The appellant was arrested at the spot. Grounds of arrest were also disclosed to him vide Ex. PG. Special report Ex. PJ was also sent to the Headquarters. Thereafter the case property alongwith sample seals were deposited in the police station with Moharir Head Constable. Chemical report Ex. PA indicates that the sample sent was of opium.

3. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was challaned.

4. The learned trial court charged the appellant under section 17 of the Act.

The prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as eight witnesses. There are certain formal witnesses. The main witnesses of the recovery are PW6 A.K. Sangwan ETO, PW7 DSP Kartar Singh and PW8 Inspector Kuldeep Singh. All the witnesses have categorically stated on oath regarding the recovery allegedly made from the appellants house in pursuance of his disclosure statement.

5. The stand taken by the appellant as emerges from his statement recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is of false implication. He asserts that he was summoned to the police station and his signatures were obtained on 2/3 blank papers forcibly. However, the appellant has not adduced any evidence in defence.

6. After examining the entire evidence, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he has preferred the prese