Sham Sunder, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 25.8.2000, rendered by the Special Judge, Ferozepur, vide which he convicted the accused (now appellant), 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 one year for having been found in possession of four bags each containing 40 kgs. poppy husk, without any permit or licence.

2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 10.7.1997, ASI Jagroop Singh, incharge of Police post jogewala, along with other Police officials, was going for patrol duty, from village jogewala to villages Dibwala, Amir Shah etc. and when the Police party reached ahead of bus stand of Jogewala and turned towards village Dibwala, accused Nishan Singh, was found sitting on the gunny bags, which were four in number, in the cluster of trees and wild growth(sarkandas). On seeing the policy party, he tried to run away, but was apprehended. The search of the bogs was conducted, in the presence of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Zira, who was called to the spot, by sending a message, as a result whereof, each bag was found containing 40 kgs. poppy husk. A sample of 250 grams, from each of the bags was separated and the remaining poppy husk was kept in the same bags. The samples, and the bags containing the remaining poppy husk were converted into parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, formal FIR was registered. The accused was arrested rough site plan of the place of the recovery was prepared. The statements of the witnesses, were recorded. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challenged.

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 him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Constable Parvider Singh, PW1, SI Surinder Pal, PW2 HC Mehal Singh, PW3, DSP Nachhattar Singh, PW4 and ASI Jagroop Singh, PW5. Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor of the State, Closed the prosecution evidence.

5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. In defence, he examined LC Pargat Singh and thereafter closed the defence evidence.

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 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, was filed by the accused/appellant.

8. None appeared, on behalf of the appellant, despite due notice, to his Counsel, that the appeal was fixed for regular hearing, on the board of this Bench. Under these circumstances, no alternative, was left with this Court, than to peruse the record, the trial Court judgment, the evidence, hear the arguments of the Counsel for the respondent, and decided the appeal, on merits as that would amount to due compliance of the provisions of Sections 385 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code as laid down, in Dharampal v. State of UP 2008(1) Law Herald (SC) 225.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent-State, and have gone through the evidence and record, of the case, carefully.

10. The first ground, taken up, in the memorandum of appeal, by the appellant, was to the effect, that no