JUDGMENT :

ANIL VERMA, J.

This appeal is arising out of the judgment and order of conviction dated 16-2-1999 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Garoth, District Mandsaur in Sessions Trial No. 261/93, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 8/18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”) and sentenced to 12 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lakh). In lieu of payment of fine amount, appellant has been directed to undergo 2 years additional R.I.

2. As per the prosecution story, on 13-3-1993 SHO Lokendra Singh Tomar got discreet information regarding illegal transportation of contraband by the present appellant Abdul Rafiq, Rama Don and Jagdish. Acting upon the said information police party reached on the spot and during the search of house of the appellant, 250 gram solid opium and 40 gram opium in liquid form has been recovered from his possession. After completing the necessary formalities, police arrested the appellant and registered FIR against him for the offence under section 8/18 of the NDPS Act and after the due investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. The appellant/accused was charged for the offence under section 8/18 of the NDPS Act. He abjured his guilt and taken the defence that he has been falsely implicated in this matter. During the trial the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited the documents Ex.P/1 to P/34 in order to bring home the charges against the appellant. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court below has not considered the material aspect of the case that the mandatory provision of law namely section 42, 50 and 57 of NDPS Act have not been complied with and except the testimony of the police officer, no independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution. The judgment of the Court below suffers from illegalities and infirmities. It was not established that the house from where the contraband article is alleged to have been recovered, belongs to the appellant or it was in his possession. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant. Hence, he prays that the judgment passed by the trial Court be set aside and the appellant be acquitted.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State prays for rejection of the appeal by submitting that the reasoning and finding given by the Court below are based upon the material available on record and not liable to be interfered with.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the impugned judgment as well as the entire record.

7. Investigating officer Lokendra Singh Tomar (PW-14) stated that on 13-3-1993 he got discreet information regarding the illegal transportation of contraband by the appellant Abdul Rafiq, Rama Don and Jagdish. Acting upon the said information he prepared a Panchnama (Ex.P/13) and reached on the spot and recovered some opium from the possession of Rama Don and Jagdish. Then he went to the house of the appellant and after preparing the Panchnama (Ex.P/5 and P/6) he made a search and recovered 250 gram opium and another 40 gram opium in liquid form from the possession of the appellant through seizure memo (Ex.P/9). He arrested the appellant by arrest memo (Ex.P/10) and registered the FIR (Ex.P/13). After the sampling process, he had sent a sample to FSL, Sagar for its chemical examination.

8. But the witnesses of sampling, seizure, panchnama and other