The main legal point established is the requirement for reliable and corroborated evidence in drug-related cases, as well as the significance of compliance with procedural provisions such as Section 42 of the NDPS Act.

Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 17-6-1996 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Satna in Special Case No. 114/93 convicting him under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 month with fine of Rs. 300/-. In default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. In short, prosecution case is that on 10-11-1993, ASI of Police Station, Nagod. District Satna, Rajmani Singh received information from an informer that accused who was running a tea and betel shop near the bus stand crossing Nagod, was selling Ganja illegally. Rajmani along with Head Constables Ramsundar Shukla and Jai Singh reached at his shop. After giving his own search and obtaining the consent of the accused, he searched the shop in presence of Sharad Singh and Indrujit Singh and recovered a paper packet containing 25 grams of Ganja. Sifice accused had no licence for possessing Ganja, he seized the said Ganja and arrested the accused. Me recorded the First Information Report (Exh. P-11) under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for brevity 'NDPS Act') and sent a sample of seized contraband to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. On receiving the FSL Report (Exh. P-10) that the seized article was Ganja, he filed the charge-sheet before the Court.

3. Learned Special Judge framed charge under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The accused denied the charge and pleaded false implication. According to him, Inspector Rajmani and other police officers used to consume tea and betels from his shop without payment. Whenever he demanded money for the same they threatened him to see.

4. Prosecution, to substantiate its case, examined Sharad Singh (P.W. 1), Indrajit Singh (P.W. 2) and Inspector Rajmani (P.W. 4) for proving the search and seizure of the contraband. Patwari Prabhakar Pandey (P.W. 3) was examined to prove the map about the location of the shop. In his defence, accused examined Safi Ahmad (D.W. 1). Independent witnesses Sharad Singh (P.W. 1) and Indrajit Singh (P.W. 2) did not support the prosecution case, however, relying on the evidence of Inspector Rajmani, learned Special Judge holding the appellant guilty, convicted him under Section 20 (b) (i) of NDPS Act and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, accused/appellant has filed this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that it was a clear case of false implication of accused by Inspector Rajmani because he was annoyed with him on his demanding money for tea and betels consumed by him frequently. He submitted that the independent witnesses Sharad Singh and Indrajit Singh did not support the prosecution case. No other local shopkeeper was made witness of the search and seizure. The provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act were not complied. No information received by informer was recorded nor any intimation in this regard was sent to any Superior Officer. No other constable or other senior officer was examined in the Court. The Ganja, allegedly seized from the shop of accused, was not produced in the Court. In these circumstances, he submitted that the Trial Court committed error in convicting the accused. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that the evidence of Inspector Rajmani (P.W. 4) was reliable. His evidence was corroborated by the seizure memorandum (Bxh. P-1, Exh. P-2, Exh. P-3) and FSL report (Exh. P-10), whereby it was confirmed that the seized article was Ganja.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned judgment,evidence and record of the case.

7. On perusal of the evidence of Sharad Singh (P.W. 1) and Indrajit Singh (P.W. 2), it is apparent that they were taxi drivers who used to come at the bus stand. It was admitted by Sharad Singh and also by Inspector Rajmani Singh (P.W. 4) that th