1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.8.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act [hereinafter it shall be referred to as the Act, 1985], in Special ST No. 5/2000 by which the appellant has been convicted under section 8/20 (b) (i) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs. 4,000/with default stipulation.

2. In short, the facts of the case are that on 1.9.2000, the complainant G.A. Khan, ASI, out-post Ruthiai, got information from the informant that the appellant is having contraband articles in his possession. The entry in the roznamcha sanha was made and the matter was informed to the SDOP on telephone. Then went to the spot alongwith the force near the Railway Station. The party went to the house of the appellant and informed about the facts for illegal possession and plantation of Ganja plants. Consent was obtained from the appellant and the house of the appellant was searched. 750 gms Ganja was recovered alongwith cash of Rs. 1,891. In the garden also, 8 plants of Ganja were also found. The panchnama was prepared and two samples of 25 gms each of Ganja and 50 gm leaves of Ganja plant were taken as sample. Dehati Nalisi was written at the spot. The appellant was arrested. FIR was written and the seized articles were sent for chemical analysis. It was confirmed that the articles which were sent for examination were Ganja and the plants of Ganja. The trial Court after completion of trial convicted the appellant as stated in para one of this judgment.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the mandatory provision of section 42 (2) of NDPS Act was not complied with by the police. Secondly, the seizure memo Ex. P-7 not supported by the independent witnesses. It is not established that the contraband article which was seized from the possession of the appellant is Ganja. It is not proved that the Tapra and the courtyard from where the alleged article were seized belong to the appellant and lastly it is submitted that in this case complainant G.A. Khan, ASI, conducted the investigation and the investigating agency is the same, hence, the offence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent/State that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.

5. Kailash Bairagi (PW 4), Head Constable, deposed that information received from the informant that the appellant is keeping Ganja illegally and also having trees of Ganja in his garden. Then, he reached to the outpost Ruthiai and Panchnama Ex. P-1 was prepared. Then ASI G.A. Khan (PW 3) informed the SDO Raghogarh. The police party went to the house of the appellant and SDO (P) told him about the search. He agreed for giving search. On search of house, 750 gms. Ganja were recovered and also cash of Rs. 1,891/- found in his house. The samples were taken and they were sealed and the Ganja was also seized on the spot. The trees were found behind the house of the appellant. The samples of leaves of plants also sealed. There was no licence for keeping the Ganja to the appellant.

6. G.A. Khan (PW 3), ASI, was posted at Ruthiai at the relevant time. He also deposed that he got information of Ex. P-1 regarding the illegal possession of Ganja from the informant. SDO (P), Raghogarh was informed and they went to the spot. The appellant gave consent for the search. The Panchnama was prepared which is Ex. P-2. The contraband article which was found in the possession of the appellant was Ganja and the relevant document is Ex. P-5. Samples were made of seized Ganja and leaves of the plants. In para 21, the witness admitted that the information received from the informant was endorsed in the Rojnamcha but this information is sent to anybody, he cannot say. In para 23, he clearly admits that the notice required under section 42 of the NDPS Act was not given to his superior offici