JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant appeal is directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 16.10.2004, upon Sessions Case No. 105-T of 4.10.2004/9.9.2002, by the learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala, wherethrough in respect of a charge drawn against the accused qua an offence punishable under Section 18(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against the accused-appellant.

2. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order of even date, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve years for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 18(b) of the Act, besides also imposed, upon the convict sentence of fine, comprised in a sum of Rs. One Lac, and, in default of payment of fine amount, he sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

3. The accused-convict becomes aggrieved from the above drawn verdict of conviction, besides also, becomes aggrieved from the consequent therewith sentences of imprisonment, and, of fine as became imposed, upon him, by the learned convicting Court concerned, and, hence has chosen to institute thereagainst the instant criminal appeal.

Factual Background and Investigation proceedings

4. The genesis of the prosecution case, becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Ex.PG/1 is assigned. The narrations carried in Ex. PG/1 are that on 11.7.2002, the police party headed by Inspector Shamsher Singh while present on bridge of drain in the area of Meerapur in connection with checking of bad elements, joined Surinderpal Singh, the independent witness. When said Inspector was holding talk with the said Surinderpal Singh, then a white colour Maruti Car without number being driven by accused came from the side of Pehowa, which became intercepted on the ground of suspicion. The accused was made to alight from the car. The investigating officer concerned, showed his inclination of searching the car, as he was suspecting that the same containing some contraband. The accused was divulged of his right of being searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, on which accused opted to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer.

5. Thereupon, Sh.P.S.Virk, SP (D) called on the spot and after his reaching on the spot, search of the maruti car was conducted, after giving offer by SP (D) to accused qua his right of being searched in presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, after disclosing identity by SP (D) as gazetted officer.

6. On search of the car, opium wrapped in a glazed paper found to be lying in the dickey in the place meant for keeping stepney. On weighing the said opium, it came to be 20 Kg. Two samples of 10 grams each were separated and were put into two small tin boxes and the remaining weighed opium was put in two plastic boxes. In one of the said box, 10 Kg opium was put and in the other 980 gram opium was put. Separate parcels of both the samples and of both the plastic boxes containing remaining opium were prepared and were sealed with seal of Shamsher Singh bearing impressions SS and also with seal of Sh. Pritpal Singh Virk, SP (D) bearing impressions PPS. Sample seal chit Ex. P1 was also prepared. Seal of Shamsher Singh Inspector was entrusted to Surinderpal Singh, independent witness whereas the SP(D) retained his seal with him. Then all the items of case property and the car taken in possession vide recovery memo. The accused could not produce licence for keeping the opium, and, as such ruqa was sent to the police station concerned, on which the appeal FIR became registered. Currency notes of Rs.385/ recovered from personal search of accused and those were taken in possession vide personal search memo. Site plan of place of recovery prepared and statements of witnesses recorded. Case property on return to police st