K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1-7-89 passed by the I. A. S. J. , Shajapur in S. T. No. 19/89 where by the appellant has been convicted u/s. 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') for possession of 11/4 Kgs. of opium valued at Rs. 4,000/ - and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for 10 years and to a fine of Rs. 1 lac.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, on 26-11-1988, information was furnished to Arjun Singh Parihar (P. W. 5), the Town Inspector, Shujalpur, by an informer that the appellant Salamat Ali, r/o Rajgarh dressed as a homeguard sainik was proceeding to Bhopal for selling opium.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the said information, Arjunsingh Parihar (P. W. 5) accompanied by probationary Sub-lnspector Madan Mohan (P. W. 1) and Police Constable Kamleshkumar (P. W. 2) reached Chhatri Chowk, near Shujalpur Railway Station. The appellant was encircled and was caught hold of. He had a bag with him. On search being taken the contra-bond opium was found in his possession in a plastic bag and was seized. The search and the seizure were effected in the presence of Panch witnesses Prem (P. W. 3) and Mahesh (P. W. 4 ).

( 4 ) THE sample was taken from the opinion seized and sealing was done. The appellant was arrested and was brought to the Police Station Shujalpur and a crime was registered (vide Ex. P/4)

( 5 ) THE sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory Sagar and the report Ex, P/ 8 received from there is to the effect that the article was opium.

( 6 ) AT the conclusion of the investigation the appellant was prosecuted. His defence was one of denial. According to him he was taken from the Railway Station and was arrested. He was not in possession of any bag and no opium was seized from him.

( 7 ) AT the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge in the absence of any cross-examination on the point held that the substance in question was opium. The panch witnesses Prem and Mahesh had admitted their signatures on the relevant documents, but had denied the prosecution case of seizure of opium from the appellant. The learned trial Judge held that the evidence of the departmental witnesses which is free from material contradictions, in the absence of evidence of any hostile animus on their part, emerges reliable and the same, beyond any reasonable doubt, connects the appellant with the crime.

( 8 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that apart from the fact that independent Panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, even the evidence of the departmental witnesses is manterially discrepant and conviction for the crime could not be founded on the same. It is further urged that there has been non-compliance with the mandatory provisions in Ss. 50, 52 and 57 of the Act providing safeguards and this introduces a fatal infirmity in the prosecution case. In support of these submissions the learned counsel has placed reliance on various decisions including those in State of M. P. v. Shav Singh (1981) 2 MPWN 218, Babulal's case (1988) 2 MPWN 100, Gendalal's case (1988) 1 MPWN 215, Veersingh's case (1988) 1 MPWN 218 and Madhu Nath's case (1990) I MPWN 166.

( 9 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the State is that on the material on record the conviction is well merited.

( 10 ) THE point for consideration is whether the appeal deserves to be allowed.

( 11 ) I shall first take up the appellant's contention regarding non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the consequences thereof.

( 12 ) AS pointed out in the Principles of Statutory Interpretation (1988 4th Edn.) by Justice G. P. Singh, the former Chief Justice of M. P. High Court, the general rule is that non-compliance of a mandatory requirement per se results in nullification of the Act. This, however, is subject to at least one exception. If certain requirements or conditions are provided by statute in the interest of a particular pers

Click Here to Read the rest of this document