R. D. VYAS, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order in Sessions Case No. 70/93 dated 2-3-1995 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ratlam, who was pleased to convict the appellant under Section 8 (18) of the N. D. P. S. Act (for short the Act ). ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this appeal are that on 27-1-1993 at about 1. 15 in the night the Station Officer Dyanrao Bachchan (PW /5) was informed by his intelligence that one person is likely to come alongwith the psychotropic substance opium on railway station, Jaora, The said information was recorded at an entry ,which is at Ex. P /13. The information was sent to the S. D. O. Police, immediate superior of the S. H. O. A Panchnama to that effect was also drawn. It is said that at 1. 30 Dyanurao Bachchan (PW /5) left for Jaora in the early morning. Govind Singh (PW /2), the Head Constable met him there. The accused/appellant was searched on his consent and he was asked whether he would like to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer, Magistrate or the said police officer. Since the accused had given consent to be searched by investigating Officer. A Panchnama was drawn regarding the search of the police officials. The accused was searched thereafter and the Panchnama is at Ex. P / 4. It is found that in a blanket rexin bag was concealed and a quantity of opium weighing 4 Kg. 60 Gms. was found there from. After taking necessary samples and sending them to the laboratory for testing the substance and after filing the charge sheet the trial Court proceeded to take evidence and decided the case against the appellant holding him guilty of offence under Sections 8/18 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo 10 years R. I. and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to undergo further 3 years of imprisonment. ( 3 ) SINCE nobody appears for the appellant, I read tile memo of, appeal and the contentions taken therein are particularly borne in mind while appreciating the evidence. No doubt the Panch witnesses PW /3 and PW / 4 have turned hostile but looking to the Panchnamas and they are turned over all deposition, I feel they are lying in the Court and have committed an offence of perjury. No doubt the Panch witnesses PW /3 and PW / 4 have turned hostile but looking to the Panchnamas and they are turned over all deposition, I feel they are lying in the Court and have committed an offence of perjury. So far as the Panchnamas are concerned they are amply proved by PW /5 Dyanurao Bachchan who has produced the entries of information and the Panchnamas of information. The option given to the appellant is required under Section 50 of the Act and the search as referred to in Sections 41, 42 and 43 of the Act. The witnesses stated that he had taken down the note of the information at entry No. 1067, which is at Ex. p /9. He said that he reached Jaora police station on 20-1-1990 at 6. 00 p. m. The exit entry from the police station is contained at entry No. 668 which is at Ex. P/b. It is stated that on the platform of railway station Head Constable Govind Singh and Rameshchandra met him. The Panch witnesses Kishan Chandra and Pravin Sharma were also available at the railway station who were informed about the information received by the 1. 0. The 1. 0. then searched fop the mean of the description according to the intelligence information. He found Rajendra Kumar the appellant sitting on a bench on the railway station. On being asked he gave his name as Rajender alias Kala. The witness said that he was asked for the option of the appellant and he consented to being searched by the 1. 0. PW /5 Dyanurao Bachchan. Necessary Panchnama are proved amply by him. ( 4 ) I do not think the lower Court committed any mistake in relying on this witness in confirmation of and in proof of the Panchnamas drawn by him. Appreciating his evidence in reference to the Panchnamas of search and arrest I feel that the witnesses were (Kishan Chand and Pravin Sharma) tried to lie before the Court and committed perjury so as to get the appellant acquittal. The Panchnamas Ex. P/3 and P/4 are concerned they proved that the appellant was searched. He has proved that the accused/appellant was asked for his option which is contained in Ex. p /2. So far as the information is concerned the 1. 0. The Panchnamas Ex. P/3 and P/4 are concerned they proved that the appellant was searched. He has proved that the accused/appellant was asked for his option which is contained in Ex. p /2. So far as the information is concerned the 1. 0. has proved in his evidence that he had informed the immediate superior as required by Section 42 of the Act about the intelligence information that he had received that is proved by Ex. p /9. The other link of arrest of the appellant etc. is proved by Ex. p /10. p /11 simply because the Panch witnesses turned hostile to hold the accused going on out of way and doing perjury. It cannot be said that the Panchnamas are not proved therefore Sections 42 and 50 of the act are not complied with. Looking to the evidence of PW /5 r /w Panchnamas Ex. P/2. 3. 4. 5. 6 and P/8 proved the possession of the illicit opium by the accused/appellant. It is not unknown that at odd hours the police gets the intelligence information. The argument regarding prosecution witness Govind Singh (PW /2) as advanced before the trial Court is rightly answered by that Court that the Court does not take into consideration the evidence of Govind Singh. ( 5 ) THE arguments sought to be advanced in the appeal memo are all considered mid I find myself to concur with the findings of the trial Court and ultimate conviction and sentence passed therefore. I find no substance in the appeal, The same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .