The main legal point established is the reliance on police testimony and the requirement of compliance with the relevant sections of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Ved Prakash Sharma, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short 'the Code'), had been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15/12/2008 rendered by Special Judge (Narcotics), Mandsaur in Special Case No. 62/2000, whereby and where under the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 8/18(b) of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and each had been convicted to undergo 10 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 Lac with default clause.

2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 09/05/2000, M.P. Singh Parihar (P.W. 5), the then ASI, Police Post Datauda, Police Station Bhavgarh, District Mandsaur, received a secret information that two persons namely - Ghanshyam Patidar (Appellant No.1) and Poonam Chand (Appellant No.2) are going from village Pareliya Lalmuha to village Riccha Lalmuha on a Motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-14-F-4801 to deliver the opium to some person. The information was recorded in the daily diary and a memorandum (Ex.P/6) was prepared in this regard. M.P. Singh Parihar (P.W.5), in view of the paucity of time, without obtaining search warrant, decided to lay a trap to caught hold the named persons. Memorandum Ex.P/7 was prepared in this regard and the copy of the both memorandums was sent to Additional S.P., Mandsaur. Thereafter, Shri Parihar (P.W.5) along with other Police Officials and panch witnesses namely -Rajendra Singh (P.W.8) and Pawan Singh (P.W.7), arranged a trap.

3. Allegedly, after about half an hour, Police Party found a motorcycle approaching towards them. The same was intercepted by the police party. Ghashyam Patidar (Appellant No.1) was riding the motorcycle while Poonam Chand (Appellant No.2) was sitting as pillion rider. M.P. Singh Parihar (P.W.5) informed both of them, vide Ex.P/9 and P/10 in writing, about their right to be searched before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and on their willingness to be searched by the Police party, search was carried out. Nothing offending was found in the personal search, however, on search of the motorcycle, 6.150 Kgs. Opium, was found in a polythene bag lying inside the dikki of the motorcycle, M.P. Singh Parihar (P.W.5) seized the same on the spot in presence of panch witnesses after complying with necessary formalities. Two samples, each weighing 30 gm. were drawn from the substance, sealed and marked as article 'A-1' and 'A-2'. Remaining contraband substance was also separately sealed. The motorcycle as well as its registration papers were also seized. The appellants were arrested. Same day a report (Ex.P/5) regarding their arrest and seizure was sent to Additional S.P., Mandsaur. Next day i.e. 0n 10/05/2000 one sample of the contraband article was sent for Forensic Laboratory, Indore, vide (Ex.P/28), the chemical Examiner, vide (Ex.P/29), opined that the substance was coagulated juice of opium poppy having 3.56% morphin.

4. After usual investigation, appellants were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 8/18(b) of 'the Act'. The appellants abjured the guilt and claim to be tried. In their examination under Section 313 of 'the Code', the appellants pleaded total innocence and claimed false implication.

5. The learned trail Court Judge, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, vide the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated here-in-above.

6. The conviction and sentence had been challenged on the ground that the seized contraband was not produced before the Court, therefore, the recovery of alleged opium becomes seriously doubtful. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that sections 42, 50, 52, 52-A and 57 of 'the Act' were not complied with in letter and spirit. It is also submitted that the independent witnesses had not supported the prosecution case, therefore, learned Special Judge has seriously erred in recording conviction on the basis of evidence of Police O