ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2005, vide which, the trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’) and the order of sentence of the even date, vide which, the appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac for committing an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act. In default of payment of fine, she was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 ½ years more.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.02.2004, a police party headed by PW-2 Sultan Singh, ASI was present at Jatal Road Bridge, Panipat and the appellant was seen coming from the side of City Panipat carrying a bag in her right hand. On seeing the police party, she felt perplexed and tried to take u-turn and she was apprehended. Since she was suspected as to carry some contraband in her bag, a notice under Section 50 of the Act was served upon her to which she opted to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. O.P. Narwal, DSP was called at the spot and on his written direction, the bag of the appellant was searched and the same was found containing 1.5 kg of charas. Thereafter, samples of 20 gms. Was taken and sealed and the residue was also sealed vide recovery memo. Thereafter, a ruqa was sent to the police station and on the basis of same a formal FIR, Ex.PG/1, was recorded against the appellant. After completing the investigation at the spot, the case property along with the accused was produced before Satbir Singh, Inspector-SHO, Police Station City, Panipat and he verified the investigation and put his seal on the case property. The sample was sent to FSL and after receiving the report, challan was presented before the trial Court.

3. The trial Court, framed charges against the appellant under Section 20 of the Act, vide order dated 11.03.2004.

4. The prosecution in its evidence produced Constable Udai Singh, who appeared as PW-1, stated that he tender his affidavit Ex.PA on record regarding submitting the sealed sample with the FSL. PW-2, ASI Sultan Singh, the Investigating Officer stated on the line of the version given in the FIR. This witness stated that when the appellant-accused was apprehended, she was given a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act Ex.PB to the effect that she has a right to be searched either before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. This notice was signed by ASI Jai Narain and a lady Constable Santosh Kumari. The accused put her thumb impression on the same and in reply Ex.PB/1, she opted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. The same was also signed by the witnesses. Thereafter, DSP, O.P. Narwal was summoned at the spot and the accused was produced before him. The DSP gave a direction vide Ex.P-C to him to conduct the search of the bag of the accused and the contraband was recovered. This witness further proved that after the recovery was effected, the sample was separated and sealed with seal SS and the residue was also sealed with the seal. Thereafter, a ruqa Ex.PG was sent to police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PG/1 was recorded against the accused.

5. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that the accused-appellant was an illiterate lady and despite his effort, no person from the public was ready to join the investigation. PW-3 ASI Jai Narain also has deposed on the same line of PW-2.

6. The public prosecutor, made a statement on 30.09.2004 that he gave up PW-2 Santosh Kumari as unnecessary. PW-4 HC Surinder Singh stated that on 20.02.2004, he handed over the sample parcel to Constable Udai Singh for depositing the same with FSL Madhuban and after depositing the same, Constable Udai Singh handed over a receipt to him. PW-5 DSP O.P. Narwal stated that on receiving message, he reached at the spot and enquired fro