Jitendra Chauhan, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.1.2004, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.80,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity ‘the Act’).

2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the matter as narrated in para no.2 of the impugned judgment are as under:

“On 7.10.2001, Budh Singh, Sub-Inspector/SHO, Police Station Kalanwali, alongwith some police officials, was present at Rori Road in the area of Kalanwali. Accused was seen coming towards that side riding a scooter. Upon seeing the police party, accused turned back his scooter. He was chased by the police. Thereupon accused left his scooter on the road and fled away from the spot. Accused could not be apprehended. However, accused was identified by complainant Budh Singh and by Gopi Chand, ASI, at the spot as Ashok Kumar. A gunny bag containing 41 Kgs. of poppy straw was found tied to the rear seat of the scooter left behind by the accused. Two samples weighing 100 grams each were removed from the said bags. Samples as well as the bulk of poppy straw were seized vide recovery memorandum Ex.PE after being duly sealed. Scooter in question was also seized. Requisition site plan was prepared at the spot. FIR was got registered by sending a ruqa to police station, Kalanwali. Case property and samples were deposited in police Malkhana of Police Station Kalanwali. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused was arrested.”

3. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court. The accused was charged under Section 15 of the Act, to which, he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:

PW1, Madan Lal, MHC, had tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PA, wherein he stated that on the basis of ruqa Ex.PB, he recorded formal FIR Ex.PB/1. In cross-examination, he deposed that case property and sample were deposited with him by the Investigating Officer.

PW2, Constable Dharampal, had tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.PC, wherein he stated that MHC Madan Lal handed over samples parcels, which was deposited with FSL, Madhumab by him on 11.10.2001 and receipt was handed over to MHC.

PW3, Rajpal, Scooter Mechanic, had deposed that the scooter in question was sold through him to Shishpal by Jaspal.

PW4, Jaspal, the owner of the scooter, deposed that he sold the scooter to Shishpal son of Banarasi for a consideration of Rs.6,000/-. The transaction was made through Rajpal.

PW5, ASI Satyawan, had deposed that the case was partly investigated by him. He took into possession RC Ex.P1 from Jaspal and recorded the statements of Rajpal and Jaspal.

PW6, ASI Gopi Chand, member of the police party, corroborated the statement of complainant Budh Singh.

PW7, SI Budh Singh, complainant, was posted as SHO, Police Station Kalanwali. He identified the accused as Ashok Kumar. He deposed that the recovery was effected from two bags weighing 41 Kgs. of poppy straw. He prepared the report under Section 57 of NDPS.

5. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and pleaded false implication. In defence, he examined DW1 Malkiat Singh and closed his evidence.

6. The learned trial Court after observing that prosecution had successfully proved that the appellant was in possession of poppy husk, which was fully established from the statement of the PWs, and therefore, the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced as noticed at the outset.

7. Feeling dissatisfi