The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and consistent evidence in cases involving drug possession, and the court's duty to carefully assess the reliability of the prosecution's case.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the verdict of conviction and sentence dated 7-7-1994 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 20 read with Section 8 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 2000. 00. In default of payment of fine, a further jail term of six months was awarded.

( 2 ) IN brief, the prosecution case was that the appellant Radhey Shyam Gupta was arrested at 5. 00 p. m. on 4-9-1992 from the Khandhar of Shiv Baran Singh which is situated in village Palra, police station Chilla, district Banda. A search of the said accused yielded to recovery of 471/2 kgs. Ganja. He had no licence to hold in his possession the said quantity of contraband substance. A recovery memo in presence of the Circle Officer was prepared and a copy thereof was handed over to the accused. The said memo was signed, besides the police personnel, by two public witnesses, namely, Bhoora and Sada Shiv who were picked up from a nearby road, a little before the arrest of the accused. A small quantity of ganja, i. e. 250 gms was taken out of the total quantity recovered, for being sent to the public analyst. The Joint Director of Agra Laboratory, Agra submitted his report that the sample pertaining to this recovery on being chemically analysed was found to be as ganja.

( 3 ) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined Sub-Inspector Ram Gopal as PW 1, Bhoora as PW 2, Kishan Singh, Circle Officer as PW 3 and S. I. Iqbal Singh, Investigating Officer as PW 4. The accused denied all the incriminating allegations levelled against him and pleaded not guilty. According to him, he was got falsely implicated in this case of fabricated recovery of ganja by Constable Shiv Singh who used to buy from his shop goods on credit and when he demanded his dues, he was arrested and carried to police station and framed in this case.

( 4 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge, Banda relied upon the prosecution story and the evidence of the witnesses examined in support thereof and arrived at a conclusion that the arrest of the accused and recovery of 71/2 kgs. Ganja was fully established by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. On the basis of this conclusion, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a verdict of conviction and awarded sentences as indicated above. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the accused Radhey Shyam Gupta has filed this appeal.

( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. Government Advocate and perused the record.

( 6 ) IT is significant to note that there were two witnesses of public who, according to the prosecution case, were present in the Khandahar of Shiv Baran Singh and the prohibited quantity of ganja was recovered in their sight and presence. First of all, it is noteworthy that neither of the two witnesses who were alleged to have been picked up by the police prior to the occurrence did not belong to Palra village. Whereas Bhoora belonged to village Para, the other witness, namely Sada Shiv hailed from the village Bachcha-ka-dera. Obviously thus, the two public witnesses cannot be said to be natural witnesses as they were residents of other village. Apart that, these witnesses were chance witnesses. They have not supported the prosecution story. Bhoora appeared in the witness box as PW 2 before the trial Court and clearly testified that no ganja was recovered from the custody of Radhey Shyam Gupta either in village Palra or elsewhere. Although, he admitted his signature on the recovery memo, ext. Ka-1, yet he rejected the prosecution theory of the accused being found in possession of any contraband goods. He explained that the police obtained his signature on a plain and blank paper, ext. Ka-1. He rejected the suggestion that he had colluded with the accused appellant and changed his version. The other witness, namely Sada Shiv did not appear in the w