JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

Present appeal is filed by appellant - Satpal, against the judgment of his conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2004, passed by Ld. Judge, Special Court, Sangrur, in Sessions Case No.166, dated 16.12.2002, arising from FIR No. 284, dated 20.09.2002, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Substances and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity 'NDPS Act'), Police Station Dhuri.

2. For the recovery of 10 KG of poppy-husk, appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused'), was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year, and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months.

3. Case of the prosecution is that on 20.09.2002, ASI Inderpal Singh along-with other police officials was going to village Kakarwal, Rajomajra, Bugra etc, in connection with patrolling in private jeep. On reaching the bus stand village Rajomajra, one Balbir Singh s/o Joginder Singh, r/o Janta Nagar, Dhuri, met them and he joined the police party. When the police party entered the vicinity of village Rajomajra, on the bank of canal, from the side of Jahangir bridge a person was seen coming on foot, carrying a plastic bag on his head. On seeing the police party, said person immediately retreated. On suspicion, he was stopped and on making inquiry, he disclosed his name as Satpal S/o Midhu Singh, caste Mithu, r/o Lalian wali, PS Jhaneer.

4. Notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served, upon which appellant responded that he has complete faith in the ASI Inderpal Singh and is ready to be searched by him.

On making search, 10 kg of poppy husk was found in the bag and accordingly, two samples of 250-250 grams each, were prepared. Thus, residue of said poppy husk on weightment, was found to be 9 ½ kg. Accordingly, both the parcels were sealed by ASI with seal 'I. S.' and after taking into possession of all articles/parcel, sample seal was handed over to Balbir Singh, whom prosecution claimed to be an independent witness.

5. After conducting other proceedings of the investigation, final report under Section 173 (2) Cr. P.C. was prepared and after submission of the same before the Court, appellant was charged with offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and accordingly, thereafter, trial commenced.

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 05 witnesses, which are as under:-

By a separate statement of learned public prosecutor, PHC Gurmail Singh and Inspector Harjinder Singh were not examined by the prosecution being unnecessary, whereas, Balbir Singh was not examined on the ground of being won over by the appellant.

7. In the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant took a plea that a false case has been registered against him and claimed innocence without producing any evidence in defence.

8. While opening the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgement passed by the trial Court is not sustainable for more than one reason.

i). First of all, ASI Inderpal Singh himself is the complainant, recovery official and investigating officer and his conduct is not fair. While submitting so, counsel argues that although notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act may not be of that much relevance in the present case, yet not convey