JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant-Hazari has preferred this appeal under section 374 Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 11.7.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the accused-appellant under section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short to be referred as 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. one lac, in default thereof, to further undergo two years simple imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case, in nut shell is that on 15.11.1999 at 8.50 a.m., PW-8 Chain Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kotputali received secret information that accused-Hazari S/o Ramdeo Ahir has kept concealed 2/2.500 Kgs. opium in his house and that he was about to sell the said opium to the truck drivers of Punjab. Accordingly, he prepared information memo and recorded the information in Rojnamcha. Thereafter, he along with police party left the police station for village Dhani Lakhwali Tan Khelna in Government Jeep bearing No. RJ-14-3C 1248 and RJ 14-C 5846 and reached the house of the appellant at 9.30 a.m. He also procured two independent witnesses, namely Rohitashwa and Radhey Shyam. The accused was found standing at the gate of his house. The Dy.S.P. first informed him of the suspicion that he was in illegal possession of opium kept concealed in his house. Thereafter, he gave notice, Ex. P/4 to the accused, thereby informing him of his right to have his search conducted either in the presence of any gazetted officer or the Magistrate. The accused consented for Deputy Superintendent of Police. Having received consent of the accused, his house was searched in the presence of independent witnesses and opium weighing 2.350 kgs. was recovered and seizure memo Ex.P/1 was prepared. The weights and measurement scales were also recovered. Four samples of opium, each weighing 50 grams were taken. The samples and remaining opium were sealed separately. The samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. 3. Having completed entire formalities as to the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant. The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation and placed before it, framed charge against the appellant under section 8/18 of the Act. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. 3. Having completed entire formalities as to the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant. The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation and placed before it, framed charge against the appellant under section 8/18 of the Act. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many 20 witnesses and got exhibited some document. After the prosecution evidence was over, the accused was examined u/s.313 Criminal Procedure Code He did not examine any witness in his defence. 5. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of having committed offence under section 8/18 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated hereinabove. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the impugned judgment as also the evidence and material on record. 7. Mr. A.K. Gupta, appearing for the accused-appellant has assailed the conviction of the appellant on two grounds. Firstly, he argued with vehemence that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond doubt that the house from which the opium was alleged to be recovered was in exclusive and conscious possession of the appellant or that he was residing in the said house and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside only on this ground. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon Mohd. Ajam Khan v. Narcotics Control Bureau, JT 1996(2) SC 636 : 1996 Cr. L.R. (SC) 345 , Rubyana v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 Cr.L.J. 148, Shaikh Mehaboob Basha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1998 Cr.L.J. 171 and Munni @ Somoti v. State of Rajasthan, 2001(4) WLN 214 : 2001 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 492 . 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above argument and have gone through the case laws cited at the Bar. To appreciate the argument it would be appropriate to refer the prosecution evidence. PW-8 Chain Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police has deposed that pursuant to the information of informer, when he along with police party reached the house of the accused, he was found present at the gate of his house. To appreciate the argument it would be appropriate to refer the prosecution evidence. PW-8 Chain Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police has deposed that pursuant to the information of informer, when he along with police party reached the house of the accused, he was found present at the gate of his house. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he was informed about the house of the accused by one of the members of raiding party. Earlier to it, the informant had already informed him about the house of the accused. The witness stated that at the time of search, none of the residents of the house except the accused was present either inside the house or outside the house. Even the female members had gone to the field. Thus, the statement of PW-8 Chain Singh goes to show that accused-appellant was in exclusive and conscious possession of the house at the time of search and seizure, inasmuch he alone was found present in the house and was residing therein. 9. The statement of PW-17 Moti Lal, SHO clinches the issue in question. He has categorically stated in his cross-examination that a year prior to the date of incident, he was posted as SHO of Police Station, Pragpura. He himself knew the house of the accused and therefore, he had informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police about the house of the accused. The witness further clarified that there existed thorough fare infront of the house of accused and that was the reason of his knowledge about his house. 10. It is true that PW-1 Rohitash and PW-2 Radhey Shyam who were introduced as independent witnesses have not supported the recovery of opium and have been declared hostile. Likewise, PW-4 Mool Chand (brother of the accused), PW-5 Bhagirath and PW-16 Satya Narain, Sarpanch who has issued the certificate (Ex.P/28) in proof of residence of the accused have also been declared hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. Likewise, PW-4 Mool Chand (brother of the accused), PW-5 Bhagirath and PW-16 Satya Narain, Sarpanch who has issued the certificate (Ex.P/28) in proof of residence of the accused have also been declared hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. But the fact remains that PW-17 Moti Lal, who had been the SHO of Police Station Pragpura a year prior to the day of incident has categorically deposed that the accused was residing in the house from where the opium was recovered and I see no reason to disbelieve or discard his testimony, more particularly when no evidence is forthcoming in defence that accused was not residing in the house in question or that he was not in exclusive and conscious possession of the house or that he was residing separately in some other house. The only evidence available on record is the explanation of accused under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code wherein he has simply stated that the house in question belonged to his parent, which in my considered view cannot be said to be sufficient to belie the prosecution case. It need be added that accused has taken specific plea in his explanation under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code but except his above explanation as to the house in question belonging to his parents, he has not stated a single word as to where he was residing nor has he produced any ocular or documentary evidence to establish that he was residing else where other than the house in question. The case laws cited at the bar have no application to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant has no substance and accordingly stands rejected. 11. It was next contended by the counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that the seal affixed on the samples of opium seized remained intact till the samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. He argued that there is no evidence to prove that the seal affixed on the samples of opium was handed over to any independent respectable person, which creates serious doubt in the genesis of the prosecution case and the possibility of seal having been tampered with cannot be ruled out. On this strength, learned counsel argued that conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. On this strength, learned counsel argued that conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in Riyaz Mohd. @ Pappu v. State of Rajasthan, 2001(1) RCC 326 , this.Court held that since the prosecution has not been able to prove that seal affixed on the samples remained intact, it creates doubt about the alleged recovery of smack. 12. I have considered the above argument. A glance at the memo, Ex.P/6 clearly indicates that PW-8 Chain Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police handed over the seal to PW-1 Rohitash who was a witness to the seizure of opium from the house of appellant. The seal was handed over to Rohitash in the presence of Radhey Shyam Saini. This document bears the signatures of Chain Singh, Rohitash and that of Radhey Shyam. It further reflects that Rohitash has certified the receipt of the seal as is evident from the note marked C to D. PW-8 Chain Singh has deposed in his examination in chief that he prepared the memo of speciman seal, Ex.P/5, which bears his signatures from E to F. After completion of entire formalities, he handed over the seal to witness Rohitash vide memo, Ex.P/6, which bears his signatures from E to F. No doubt, PW-1 Rohitash has been declared hostile, but he has specifically deposed that a seal was handed over to him and the same was taken back after a lapse of 20 days and a receipt thereof was not given. He also admitted his signatures on the memo Ex.P/6 from A to B. None of the prosecution witnesses has stated that either Rohitash returned the seal after 20 days or that it was taken back from him. Therefore, the prosecution case cannot be thrown merely on the ground that witnesses Rohitash and Radhey Shyam have not supported the prosecution case. There is no evidence which may lead this Court to draw an inference that there was tampering with the seals so as to make the recovery of opium suspicious. 13. Therefore, the prosecution case cannot be thrown merely on the ground that witnesses Rohitash and Radhey Shyam have not supported the prosecution case. There is no evidence which may lead this Court to draw an inference that there was tampering with the seals so as to make the recovery of opium suspicious. 13. Even if the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is taken to be correct, the same, in my considered view cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case for the simple reason that the seals remained intact right from seizure till the samples were sent to FSL for chemical examination as it stands proved by the prosecution. PW-12 Hazari Lal Sharma Incharge, Malkhana has deposed that on 15.11.1999 seven sealed packets were handed over to him to be deposed in Malkhana and he made entries of the same in Ex.P/22. On 6.12.1999 he handed over four sealed packet to Constable Mukh Ram. He has categorically deposed that seals on samples remained intact till they were handed over to Mukh Ram. PW-15 Mukh Ram, Constable has categorically deposed that he received the samples in sealed condition and deposited the same with the FSL in same condition and obtained receipt thereof. Further, the FSL report, Ex.P/29 completely rules out the allegation of seals having been tampered with, inasmuch as it clearly indicates that 'the packets four in numbers marked A, B, C and D enclosed within separate cloth cover were properly sealed bearing impressions which tallied with specimen seal impression forwarded. The seals were intact'. 14. From the statements of PW-6 Rajesh Kumar, PW-7 Nathu Singh, PW 8 Chain Singh, PW-17 Moti Lal and PW-20 Sawai Singh it is proved beyond doubt that opium was recovered from the possession of accused-appellant and he was having no licence to posses it. Thus, the learned trial Court, in my considered view has rightly appreciated the evidence and has correctly convicted the appellant for offence under section 8/18 of the Act. 15. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal of the appellant fails on both the grounds. 16. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court dated 11.7.2001 convicting the appellant under section 8/18 of the NDPS Act and awarding sentence thereunder, which is impugned in this appeal is upheld.Appeal dismissed. *******