S. D. JHA, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Ramaswami challenged his conviction under Section 8 read with Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter called the Act) and sentence of 10 years R. I. and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default further two years R. I. awarded by Additional Sessions Judge, Garoth, by judgment dated 16-1-1989. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION story is that Subhaschan dra Dubey (P. W. 3) S. 0. , P. S. Shyamgarh on 8-1-1986 at 7. 30 a. m. received information from an informer that two persons South Indians a man and a woman were travelling by Mandsaur-Chambal Bus. He entered this information in Rojnamcha of the Police Station, copy of which is Ext. P.-3 and then proceeded to Subji Mandi a Tn-road Junction where he could stop the bus. He was accompanied by his assistants. He also procured two witnesses Shivnarayan (P. W. 2) and one Nensing (not examined ). When the bus arrived, he stopped the same and proceeded to search the bus two South Indians, a man and a woman, who were sitting in the rear scat were getting down the bus; Subhaschandra Dubey grew suspicious and got the two alighter from the bus. Man was accused-appellant Ramaswami, on search of his person, inside his langot two plastic bags were found. They contained opium one kilo each bag, samples of the substance were taken duly sealed and sent later for chemical examination to chemical examiner, Neemuch. On return to Police Station S. C. Dubey, made entry in rojnamcha Saha No. 264, copy of which are Ext P.-4 and Ext. P. 5. Investigation complete, challan was put up against the accused. On 22-9-1986 accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to charges under Section 8 read with Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution in all examined five witnesses in support of its case. Accused denied that any seizure was effected from him and denied know ledge about other material allegations. He did not examine any witness in defence. The Additional Sessions Judge found prosecution case proved and convicted and sentenced the accused as set out above. ( 3 ) THE appellant presented this appeal through Jail. As he was unrepesented Shri Brajesh Pandya, Counsel at the expencess of Legal Aid Committee of the High Court was provided to him. The accused was also produced during hearing. The Additional Sessions Judge found prosecution case proved and convicted and sentenced the accused as set out above. ( 3 ) THE appellant presented this appeal through Jail. As he was unrepesented Shri Brajesh Pandya, Counsel at the expencess of Legal Aid Committee of the High Court was provided to him. The accused was also produced during hearing. The appellant submitted that he is freedum fighter and he is falsely involved in the case. Shri Brajesh Pandya submitted that other Police Officers who accompanied Shri S. C. Dubey to the place where bus stoped and seizure effected were not examined, no identification parade was held. The prosecution evidence did not prove the case against the appellant. In support of his argument Shri Pandya relied on Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of M aharashtra. ( 4 ) SHRI S. K. Pawneker, Penal Lawyer, representing State of M. P. submitted that the prosecution evidence satisfactorily proved the case against the accused and conviction and sentence was were well merited. He urged for dismissal of the appeal. ( 5 ) IT is now to be seen when whether appellant Ramaswami was found in possession of two kilograms of opium as alleged and his act is punishable under Section 18 of the Act. ? ( 6 ) THE evidence against the appellant is both oral and documentary. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are Mohammad Sultan (P. W. 1), Shivnarayan (P. W. 2), Subhashchandra Dubey (P. W. 3), Mewalal (P. W. 4) and Kamlesh Soni (P. W. 5 ). According to Subhaschandra Dubey (P. W. 4), he received information from informer about two South Indians (Madrasi) a man and a woman travelling with opium. This information be entered in rojnamcha copy of which is Ext. P.- 3. He then proceeded to the tn-road junction and stopped the bus and on search of the accused found two plastic bags in his langot which he felt opium. He called for scales and on weighing the contents of the bags weighed one kilo each. Samples from two bags weighing 30 grams each were taken and properly sealed. The woman accompanying the accused was also found possessing opium for which action was taken separately. Seizure memo though not proved in examination-in- chief but got proved in cross-examination is Ext. P.-l langot was also seized. Samples from two bags weighing 30 grams each were taken and properly sealed. The woman accompanying the accused was also found possessing opium for which action was taken separately. Seizure memo though not proved in examination-in- chief but got proved in cross-examination is Ext. P.-l langot was also seized. This seizure is amply corroborated by Head Constable Mohammad Sultan (P. W. 1) and independent witness Shivnarayan (P. W. 2 ). Suchaschandra Dubey, after returning to Police Station, made entry in rojnamcha sanha at No. 264 (Ext. P.-4) and registered offence, Ext. P.-5. ( 7 ) MEWALAL (P. W. 4) Head Constable, had kept the seized packet in sealed condition and langot in malkhana. From the statement of Subhaschandra Dubey (P. W. 3), it appears that the samples taken from the seized packets were sent for chemical examination to Government Opium and Allkaloid Works, Neemuch, through Police Constable Harishanker (not examined by the prosecution) copy of enteries about these in rojnamcha are Ext. P.-6andext. P.-7. Kamlcsh Soni (P. W. 5) employed as Chemical Assistant Ext. P.-8, on examination of morphine contents of the samples, has opined that samples were opium. Nothing material has come in the cross fil examination of the aforesaid witnesses to make them untrustworthy. The evidence satisfactorily establishes that two kilos of opium, one kilo each in the two packets, were found bidden in the langot of the accused appellant. ( 8 ) AS for Shri Pandays reliance on Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra (supra) that the appellant was not subjected to test identification, it would suffice to say that according to prosecution witnesses the accused soon after he was apprehended was taken, to Police Station, arrested and then produced before the Magistrate. In this state of things and looking to the nature of accusation no identification was necessary. ( 9 ) CONVICTION of the appellant under Section 8 and read with Section 18 of the Act must be maintained. As for sentence the appellant has been awarded the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 18 and considering the quantity of opium seized from him there is no justification in any way, to interfere with the sentence. Appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant who is in jail be informed. Appeal dismissed. .