JUDGEMENT

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.3.2006 delivered by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Sidhi, in Special Case No.19/2005 whereby the appellant was held guilty of the offence of Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act (for short, "the Act") and was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-. It was further directed that in case he failed to pay the fine, he shall undergo additional one month rigorous imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case which have led to the conviction of appellant are that on 6.4.2005 ASI Shri R. B. Singh was posted in Police Station, Bargawan, district Sidhi, where he received information from a mukhbir that the appellant, who was present on the railway station, was carrying "Ganja"

in his bag; ASI Shri R. B. Singh prepared a mukhbir soochna Panchnama; sent a copy of it to SDO(P), Singrauli; summoned the witnesses and proceeded for the spot along with police party; an entry in Rojnamcha Sanha was made thereof; appellant was found standing on the railway station; he was informed about the mukhbir soochna and was asked whether he would like to give his search to ASI Shri R. B. Singh or would like to be searched by a Gazetted Officer/Magistrate; on receiving his consent, ASI Shri R. B. Singh searched him after giving the search of police party and it was found that appellant was carrying "Ganja" in a polythene bag, which was in his possession; the contents of bag were made homogeneous after being tested as "Ganja"; the quantity of "Ganja" was weighed, two samples were drawn and then the samples as well as the remaining quantity were sealed; seizure memo was prepared; after preparing all the necessary memos and completing the formalities, the appellant was arrested and brought to the police station; the "Ganja" was handed over to the Malkhana Prabhari from where the sample was later sent for chemical examination to FSL, Sagar; the report received therefrom confirmed that the seized material was "Ganja"; the charge sheet was prepared and the trial was held in which the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

3. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law; there was no independent witness available to prove the case of prosecution;

Bhaiyalal (P.W.1) had failed to give support to the prosecution story; compliance of Section 57 of NDPS Act was not ensured as a detailed report was not sent to the Superintendent of Police within 48 hours; it was sent on 28.4.2005 and was received on 30.4.2005; provisions and procedures mandatory for search of appellant were not adhered to; the court below failed to properly appreciate the evidence. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment be aside and the appellant be acquitted.

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the present appeal on the ground that the judgment passed by the trial Court is based upon the reliable evidence available on record and there is no reason to doubt the prosecution case, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the State, perused the judgment and record of the court below. The appellant was not present to argue the matter.

6. The record reveals that total eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case and except Bhaiyalal (P.W.8), all of them have supported the prosecution story. They are ASI Shri R. B. Singh (P.W.4), who was instrumental in conducting the search and recovery of "Ganja", Head Constable Hari Pratap Singh (P.W.2) and independent witness Ahmad (P.W.3) accompanied ASI Shri R. B. Singh as members of team which conducted the search and recovered the "Ganja", Chatrapal Pandey (P.W.1) was the Constable who took the mukhbir information to the Office of SDO(P) and Constable Raghuvir Singh was acting as Assistant Reader to SDO(P), who received that information, Ram Ujagar (