Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.:- The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.9.2011 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Tarn Taran whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Section 18(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“ND&PS Act” -for short) in respect of keeping in possession 2.5 kgs of opium without any licence, detailed hereinbelow:-

Under Section Sentence imposed

18(c) ND&PSAct To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11years, besides, pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Indefault of payment of fine to further undergorigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. On 29.6.2009, Surjit Singh Sub Inspector/Station House Officer alongwith a police party was present near bus stand Ram Khara in connection with general checking. Jaimal Singh, Ex-Sarpanch met him and he was joined in the police party. In the meantime, one bus came from the side of Pattu and two persons alighted from the bus. They were carrying bags over their shoulders. On seeing the police party, they tried to flee away from the back side of the bus. Surjit Singh, Sub Inspector alongwith other police officials arrested Harpal Singh son of Ajaib Singh (appellant herein). The Investigating officer suspected that the bag carried by the appellant was containing some intoxicant, he offered to search his bag in the presence of some gazetted officer. The accused expressed his desire to be searched before a gazetted officer, therefore, Kirpal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police was requested to reach the spot. DSP Kirpal Singh on arrival at the spot asked the accused to be searched before some Magistrate or by him and the accused agreed to get his search conducted from the Deputy Superintendent of Police. On search of the bag, opium wrapped in a plastic paper was recovered. Two samples of 20 grams each were separated and the remaining opium came to be 2 kgs and 460 grams. The samples and bulk opium were sealed separately. Ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis whereof, formal FIR was registered. On completion of investigation and receipt of report of the forensic science laboratory, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”-for short) was submitted in the Court.

3. Copies of the documents in compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to the accused. On finding a prima facie case, charge under Section 18 of the Act was framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined Sub Inspector Surjit Singh (Investigating Officer) PW1, Head Constable Ranjit Singh PW2 and Kirpal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW3).

5. Statement of the accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances put to him and pleaded innocence and false implication. He examined Darshan Singh DW1 and Daulat Ram DW2, in defence.

6. The learned trial court, on bestowing its thoughtful consideration to the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the accused coupled with rival submissions made by counsel for the parties came to hold that the accused was found in possession of 2.5 kgs of opium and the same falls within the scope of commercial quantity and as a consequence, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, noticed hereinbefore.

7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court, the present appeal has been preferred.

8. Counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that he does not assail the findings of the learned trial court in regard to the appellant being found in possession of 2.5 kgs of opium without any permit or licence, however, he has assailed verdict of the learned trial court so far as holding that the alleged recovery falls within the purview of commercial quantity and as a result, awarding sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11 yea