( 1. ) ACCUSED-APPELLANT Jeetsingh is aggrieved by his conviction and sentence (10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1. 00 lac), passed under Sections 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (for short, the NDPS Act), by Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora, District Ratlam, vide his judgment dated 13-7-1993 in Sessions Trial No. 92/1991. ( 2. ) THE case of the prosecution as unfolded at the trial was that on 19-2-

1991, around 10. 00 oclock in the night, Sub-Inspector U. P. S, Chouhan of P. S. Industrial Area, Jaora, acting on tips from some approver, raider a room attached to a road side hotel called janta Dhaba, situated on Mandsaur Road, 2 Kilometers away from the police station. According to the prosecution the said Dhaba and the room belonged to and occupied by accused appellant Jeet Singh. The said room was searched by Sub-Inspector Chouhan in presence of two panch witnesses and 17. 200 Kgs. of Opium kept in four bags was recovered from inside the room. 400 Grams of Poppy Husk was also recovered from that room. One sample each of 50 grams was drawn from the said bags of Opium. The seized Opium was thereafter sealed and a memorandum (Ex. P- 1) thereof was prepared on the spot. Accused-appellant was arrested and FIR vide Ex. P-5 was lodged at the police station the same night at 11. 05 p. m. The samples of the seized contraband were got analyzed at Government Opium and Alkaloid Works, Neemuch which confirmed that the seized contraband was Opium (vide report Ex. P-6 ). After other due investigation the accused was charge sheeted and committed for trial which ended into his conviction as aforesaid.

( 3. ) I have heard Mr. Sanjay Sharma, learned Counsel for appellant and Mr. Mayank Upadhyay, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

( 4. ) THE prosecution examined Radheshyam s/o Bhagirath (P. W. 1) and Radheshyam s/o Udayram (P. W. 2) the two attesting witnesses of the said search, and Sub-Inspector Chouhan (P. W. 3) in evidence before the Trial Court. However, both the aforesaid panch witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution denying recovery of any Opium in their presence. They explained that their signature on various documents (Exs. P-1, P-2 and P-3) were obtained at the police station. It could, however, be urged that they have suppressed the truth. Accepting this contention the Court has to see whether there is other reliable evidence to prove the charge against the appellant. .

( 5. ) THIS brings me to the evidence of Sub-Inspector Chouhan who as P. W. 3 has narrated the story already stated hereinbefore. He testified to have reached the said Dhaba wherefrom a room, he further stated, four bags of Opium weighing 17. 200 Kgs. were recovered.

( 6. ) IT may be stated here that no other person not even the police officials who accompanied Sub-Inspector Chouhan at the time of the said raid, has been examined in evidence. Under the circumstance, the solitary and uncorroborated testimony of Sub-Inspector Chouhan needs to be scrutinized with more than ordinary caution. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant has severely criticized his evidence. He has dealt with his evidence almost threadbare in his endeavour to show that the learned Trial Judge was altogether wrong in convicting the appellant. He contended that there was no compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 57 of the Act. It was further pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence to show as to where the seized contraband was kept after its seizure and before its production in the Trial Court. He further contended that the investigation in the case was also vitiated as it was conducted by Sub-Inspector Chouhan himself whose position was no better than the compfainant in the case.

( 7. ) MR. Mayank Upadhyay, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has strongly defended the impugned conviction and submitted that the search in question was conducted not under Section 42 but under Section 43 of th