ORDER :

1. The appellant is aggrieved by his conviction under Sections 8 and 18(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the NDPS Act”) sentencing him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with a default stipulation.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations were with regard to illegal sale/purchase between the appellant and the acquitted co-accused. No appeal has been filed against the acquittal. If the sale/purchase was not established, the conviction of the appellant alone is improper. It is next submitted that PW-1 and PW-2, the independent witnesses to the search and seizure have turned hostile and have denied their presence during such search and seizure.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the search and seizure memo itself is suspicious in view of the large gap in space between the signature of the appellant and that of the of the independent witnesses.

4. Relying on Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi (2011) 6 SCC 392, it is submitted that there has been non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act as the appellant was not informed of his legal right to be searched before a Magistrate