( 1 ) APPELLANT/accused has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 27. 3. 1998 in Sessions Trial No. 345/96, passed by the learned VIlith Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain of his conviction and sentence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short NDPS Act) for 10 years RI with fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default further RI for one year for keeping in possession the contraband opium of 700 gms.

( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is that on 5. 11. 1996 at about 8 p. m. Station House Officer D. S. Athwal (PW 9) of Police Station Neelganga, Ujjain received an information from the approver that two persons are suspected of indulging in drug trafficking in Shastri Nagar, Ujjain and the information of the approver was sent to the City Superintendent of Police, Madhav Nagar, Ujjain. After receiving the information CSP D. C. Sagar (PW 5) reached the Police Station and he along with ASI Subodh Kshrotriya PW 6 and SHO D. S. Athwal (PW9) and the Panch witnesses Badrilal (PW 3) and Hemraj (PW 7) proceeded to Shastri Nagar. That at about 8. 30 p. m. the two persons were seen moving in suspicious condition in Shastri Nagar, Lane No. 7. They made an attempt to escape, but they were stopped by the police party. D. S. Athwal (PW 9) informed them that both are suspected of carrying the contraband and they have a right to get their search conducted either before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer and both of them gave consent that their search can be made by CSP D. C. Sagar (PW 5 ).

( 3 ) THAT in personal search of both the suspects nothing was recovered, but in a bag carried by accused Babulal there was opium weighing 500 gms and in the bag of accused Dharmendra there was opium weighing 700 gms. That after the weighment of the contraband they were sealed on the spot and the signatures of the accused persons along with the Panch witnesses were taken on the seizure memo (Ex. P15 ). It was informed to the accused that they have been arrested for carrying the opium and, thereafter, they were taken to the police station where D. S. Athwal (PW 9) has deposited both the packets in the Malkhana of the police station. The information of the arrest of the accused persons was sent to the higher autho-rities. That on 7. 11. 1996 D. S. Athwal (PW 9) took seized items from the Malkhana of the police station and in presence of Prahlad Amarchiya (PW 4) the two sample packets of 30 gms each from each packet were drawn and sample packets along with the seized packets were sealed by the Tehsildar. That D. S. Athwal (PW 9) thereafter deposited the Muddemal in the Malkhana and one packet was sent to the FSL Indore for chemical examination. That FSL Indore vide report dated 15. 11. 1996 has opined that the contents of the packet were opium. After preparing the map of the spot and recording the statement of the witnesses separate charge-sheets were filed against both the accused persons on 31. 12. 1996 in the Court under Sections 8/18 of the NDPS Act.

( 4 ) ACCUSED abjured the guilt and denied all the incriminating circumstan-ces in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. The defence of the accused is that the police has falsely implicated them. The accused has not led any evidence in defence.

( 5 ) THE learned Trial Court has examined Head Constable Banesingh (PW 1), Head Constable Prem Narain (PW 2), Panch witness Badrilal (PW 3), Tehsildar Prahlad Amarchiya (PW 4), CSP Dinesh Chandra Sagar (PW 5), ASI Subodh Kshrotriya (PW 6), Hemraj (PW 7), Chemical Examiner S. R. Patidar (PW 8) and SHO D. S. Athwal (PW 9 ). The Trial Court has held that the accused was found in possession of the opium weighing 500 gms. and the procedural safeguards provided under Sections 42, 50, 52, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act were taken and the accused was convicted and sentenced as above.

( 6 ) THE appellant has assailed the finding of the learned Trial Court on the ground that the recovery of the contra-band is not proved