The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with legal provisions, the need for reliable and admissible evidence, and the importance of avoiding suspicious circumstances that raise doubts about the prosecution's case.

I. S. Shrivastava, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 05/01/2004 passed by the Court of Ku. Karuna Trivedi, Special Judge (under Rs. NDPS Act'), Mandsaur in Special Case No. 23/1997 by which the appellants Sundarlal and Shivlal have been convicted under Sections 8/ 18(b) and 8/ 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 'the NDPS') and applicant Mulchand has been convicted under Sections 8/29(18-b) and 8/29(21-c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of twelve years each alongwith fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- each; in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years by each appellant.

2. According to the prosecution story, Rajesh Nagpal, Asst. Narcotic Commissioner, Neemuch received an information from the informer on 07/02/1997 that accused Shivlal and Sunderlal were running a laboratory and preparing morphine illegally in their house situated at Gram-Narayangarh, Mohalla Upallapura, hence the above information was registered as DRI Ex.P/22 and the same was forwarded to senior officer Asst. Narcotic Commissioner, Neemuch. Thereafter, preventative party was arranged in the leadership of S.P.S. Yadav and the house of Shivlal was raided in presence of the witnesses. Accused Shivlal was called out of the house and after giving information of the informer, his consent for search of the house was taken. During search of the house, accused Sunderlal was found. Before the accused Sunderlal and Shivlal and panch witnesses, 600 grams heroin was found in a polythine bag which was recovered from the room situated in the left side of the courtyard. Thereafter, in a carton and in a brass bowl, respectively 8.330 kg and 5.500 kg opium was found and 16.700 kg waste material of opium after preparation of morphine was found. From the seized morphine, two samples of 5 grams each were prepared, sealed and marked as A & B. From the seized opium recovered from two cartons, two samples of 24 grams each were prepared from both the carton. One carton was marked as 'A' and samples were marked as A-1 and A-2 as well as other carton was marked as 'B' and samples of it were marked as B-1 and B-2. Two samples of 20 grams each were prepared from the waste opium and marked as C-1 and C-2. All the samples were sealed as per procedure. One motorcycle Rajdoot was also seized from the house of accused Shivlal and on interrogation, they informed that they had prepared the morphine to deliver it to businessman of Jaipur. Thereafter, the statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation on the spot, the raid party returned to the office and report Ex.- P/12 to Ex.-P/21 were sent to Superintendent Preventative. The seized property was deposited in Malkhana and samples of it were sent to Opium and Alkaloid Factory, Neemuch. Report of it Ex.-P/26 was received from there.

During investigation, accused Sunderlal informed that for the preparation of morphine, opium is required and he purchased the same from his relative accused Mulchand. On 06/02/1997, he had advanced Rs. 1,60,000/- to Mulchand for the purchase of 30 kg opium. On the basis of the statement of Sunderlal, on 13/02/1997 in the leadership of M.L. Malecha, preventative party raided the house of Mulchand before the witnesses and seized Rs. 1,57,000/- from a atechi. He disclosed the fact that he received this money from Sunderlal for opium and he had spent Rs. 3000/, hence accused Mulchand was also arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was filed and after trial, the applicants/accused were convicted as stated herein above.

3. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The independent witnesses of the seizure memo, Bharatsingh PW-4 and Ramchandra PW-6 were hostile and they did not support the prosecution case. Compliance of Section 52 of the NDPS