1. The appellant Amar Singh has preferred this appeal under section 374 of CrPC being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.12.2003 passed by Ku. Karuna Trivedi, Special Judge (NDPS Act,) Mandsaur in Special S.T. No. 9/02 by which the appellant has been convicted under section 8/18 (b) of the NDPS Act (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment of 10 years along with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment of two years' R.I.

2. According to prosecution story on 13.1.2002 on information of informer, ASI Mamrajsingh Tomar seized 8 kg. 500 gms. of opium from the possession of the appellant Amarsingh. Hence, Crime No. 4/02 was registered at P.S. Suwasra Distt. Mandsaur and after investigation challan was filed. After trial the appellant was convicted as mentioned above.

3. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the property was not produced before the trial Court. There is no compliance of section 52-A of the Act. The independent witnesses were hostile. The document prepared by the Investigating Officer, was tampered. The FIR was registered at 6.50 p.m. at Crime No. 4/02, while Panchnama of re-sealing (Exh. P-3) was prepared at 4.40 p.m. and crime number has been mentioned in it. There is material contradiction in statement of Head Constable Suresh Sharma (PW-7) who was member of raiding party and Matadin Tomar (PW 6), the Seizing Officer. Dilip Gangrade (PW 8) was the officer of doubtful conduct and adverse remarks were passed against him by the Court about false implication of accused person, hence appeal be accepted.

4. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent that 8 kg. 500 gms. of opium was seized from illegal possession of the appellant Amar Singh. Before the trial Court he was found guilty and has been rightly punished by the impugned judgment. Appeal being baseless and devoid of merits, be dismissed.

5. Considered the arguments. Record perused.

6. In this case, there is no evidence that the seized property was deposited in the Court. There is no evidence to the effect that the property was disposed of before the trial. Hence compliance under Section 52-A of the Act was not proved and it was proved that the property was disposed of before filing of the challan. Hiralal Nanda (PW 2) has deposed that he has deposited seized property in the Malkhana of Police Station vide Panchnama (Exh. P-2). In Malkhana register (Exh. P-4) it has been mentioned that on 13.2.2002, article 'A' was taken out from the Malkhana to conduct procedure under section 52-A of the Act and two samples of 30-30 gms. each was prepared before the Station Incharge Gangrade and Naib Tahsildar Bhandari and thereafter article 'A' and samples B1, B2 were deposited in the Malkhana but in this regard no Panchnama was prepared. No order sheet was written by the Naib Tahsildar. Naib Tahsildar Bhandari has not been examined in the Court. Rajedra Rai (PW-4) has deposed that he has not produced the property in the Court. In the statement of ASI, M.S. Tomar (PW-6) it has been mentioned that sample returned from the FSL was produced in the Court and marked as article 'A' and other sample which was deposited in the police station was produced in the Court and marked as article 'B'. Samples in bulk quantity of the opium were not deposited in the Court and no evidence in this regard has been produced. As discussed above no evidence has been produced that the bulk quantity of opium was disposed of in compliance of section 52-A of the Act. In this way bulk quantity of property was not produced before the Court.

7. Two independent witnesses of the Panchnama seizure (Exh. P-16), Shahidl Khan (PW 9) and Shyamlal (PW 10) are hostile. According to Shahid Khan (PW 9), he was sitting at a shop in village Suwasra and on call of Police Constable he went to the police station. Police did not tell him anything and got his signature on Exh. P-6 to Exh. P-18. Police did not seize any narcotic substa