The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of proving the legality of seizure and disposal of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, as well as the importance of complying with the prescribed procedure for disposal under Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

I.S. Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.07.2001 passed by the Court of Shri R.K. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora, Distt.-Ratlam in S.T. No. 149/95 by which the appellants-Vinay Kumar and Shambhu have been convicted under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act (for short the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years along with fine of ' 1 lakh (One lakh) to each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years by each.

2. According to prosecution story, on 11.06.1995, Mr. Pradeep Singh, in-charge, Police Station-Piploda, Tehsil-Jaora was on Moharram duties and for checking of villages, at that time he saw that a tractor with trolley containing some Articles was passing through bus stand, Mawta, which was stopped by Mr. Pradeep Singh, driver of the tractor tried to run away but he was stopped. On inquiry, he informed presence of poppy straw in the gunny bags loaded in the trolley. He was having no papers about the transit and permit. The driver told his name as Shambhu, hence the independent witnesses-Champalal and Rameshwar were called on and information about the transportation was sent to SDOP, Jaora. After obtaining due consent of the accused and after giving search of the force before Panch witnesses, the substance kept in the gunny bags was identified as poppy straw. There were 15 bags. On weightment, the total weight was found to be 629 kg.. Thereafter, for checking purpose little quantity was taken out from each bag and 2 samples each of 2 kg. were prepared and marked as Articles A-1 & A-2. The samples were sealed as per procedure. The 15 gunny bags were seized along with tractor trolley and accused -Shambu was arrested on the spot thereafter, the police party along with accused, seized articles and tractor trolley came back to police station where the seized property was handed over to head police constable (Mohorrir). FIR was registered at crime No. 78/95 under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.

3. During investigation, accused-Shambhu was interrogated and he gave information that the seized poppy straw belongs to Vinay Kumar Jain alias Bhura and he has unloaded 21 bags of poppy straw in the open space behind his house near bus stand. Hence, on receiving information, Mr. Pradeep Singh Ranawat along with witnesses Rameshwar and Champalal proceeded to village-Mawta and reached at the house of Vinay Kumar and they informed him with the information given by Shambhu. Thereafter, after obtaining due consent for the search of the house, Inspector - Mr. Pradeep Singh gave search of police party to witnesses of accused-Vinay Kumar and a Panchnama was prepared. The accused-Vinay Kumar was informed about the information of 21 Bags of poppy straw and after obtaining his consent, from the open place at the back side of his house, 21 gunny bags of poppy straw were found. The bags were opened and checked and then it was found that they contained the same item i.e. poppy straw as was informed. On weightment, its weight was found to be 818 kg. Thereafter, after collecting little quantity of poppy straw from each bag, 2 samples each of 2 kg. were prepared and sealed as per procedure and marked as Articles A-1 & A-2. The remaining quantity was seized along with samples and the accused-Vinay Kumar was arrested on spot and thereafter, police party returned to police station and seized articles were handed over to head constable (Mohorrir). Two samples of the seized property-poppy straw were sent to FSL, Indore for chemical examination. The relevant certificate of the ownership of the house of Vinay Kumar was obtained and after completion of the investigation, Challan was filed in the Court. After trial, the appellant has been convicted as mentioned above.

4. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that independent witnesses were hostile and the seized property was not produced in the Court. The seizure was from the open pl