The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 50 and Section 54 of the NDPS Act in the context of proving the possession of contraband substance and drawing presumption against the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the appellant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment and finding dated 09.11.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Shahdol in Special Case No.20/1998(N) whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted under Sections 20 (B)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'ÂNDPS Act'™) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.5000/-, with default stipulation of 6 months R.I.

2. The prosecution story in nutshell is that, on 10.06.1998, while patrolling, A.S.I.-Vijay Bahadur Singh received an information that the appellant/accused possessed contraband substance i.e. Ganja at Indwar Tiraha for selling purpose. He immediately rushed there along-with other officials and seized 1.5 Kg Ganja from the possession of appellant/accused which was kept in a carry bag, in the presence of two independent witnesses namely Dhanni (PW-1) and Kaushal Prasad (PW-2). He arrested the accused and registered the case for the offence punishable under NDPS Act.

3. After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. The appellant/accused abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried; therefore, the trial Court proceeded further and recorded the statements of five prosecution witnesses as well as statement of appellant/accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

4. After evaluating the entire evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 20 (B)(i) of NDPS Act and sentenced him, as mentioned above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. In fact, there is no cogent material to connect the appellant/accused with the crime but the trial Judge has not applied judicial mind while passing the order of conviction and sentence. The learned trial Court erred in holding that the appellant possessed the contraband substance whereas the independent witnesses of seizure and arrest have turned hostile. It can be easily seen from the record that the investigation officer committed grave irregularities while investigating the case. He did not comply with the mandatory provision of NDPS Act viz. Section 50. He further argued that the substance ought to have been weighed on the spot but the same was done at police station in the absence of appellant/accused and the Investigation Officer has also not prepared any document in this regard. Independent witnesses namely Dhanni (PW-1) and Kaushal Prasad (PW-2) clearly denied the prosecution story regarding seizure and weighment of contraband substance. The learned Special Judge passed the judgment only on the basis of presumption and testimony of official witnesses whereas the seizure is not proved in the case. The case of prosecution is doubtful and therefore, appellant/accused deserves to be acquitted on the said ground only.

6. On the other hand, learned P.L. for the respondent-State opposed the submissions of appellant'™s counsel by submitting that the offence committed by the appellant/accused is serious in nature and against the society. There is sufficient evidence available to hold the appellant guilty. The trial Court has rightly convicted him. It has been settled by the Hon'™ble Supreme Court that accused can be convicted solely on the basis of statement of police officials without there being corroboration from the evidence given by independent witness. Therefore, the judgment passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. After hearing the arguments made by the appellant counsel as well as on perusal of appeal memo, the appellant has filed the instant appeal on the following grounds:-

1. That, the investigation officer has