JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Sanwar Ram filed this appeal against the judgment dated July 16, 2004 of Special Judge Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2003 convicting and sentencing the accused appellant under section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 to undergo 11 years' RI and pay a fine of Rs. 1.00 lakh and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Three years' RI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on May 29, at 11.30 a.m. Chenaram Sub Inspector, Incharge Police Station (PW.4) received information from an informant that Truck No.RJ 19 G 3115 coming from Bhilwara which is being plied by Driver Sanwarram is containing full of crushed capsule of opium poppy. Information was recorded by the SI in Ex. P.9, reads as under : " bl le; eq> SI pSukjke dks dk;Zyk; esa mifLFkr gks dj eq[kchj us bZryk nh fd V~d ua0 RJ 19 G 3115 ,y0ih0 tks/kiqj cksMh dh gSA ftldk pkyd lkojjke gSA V~d ds mij fefyV~h jax dk frjiky Mkyk gqvk gqvk gSA tks vHkh&2 HkhyokM+k ls fudyh gSA V~d esa eknd inkFkZ MksMs Hkjs gqos gSA tks MksMs cksjks esa Hkj j[ks gSA tks V~d esa fey ldrs gSA " At 11.30 a.m. Incharge Police Station Nasirabad Sadar (Ajmer) sent the information under section 42 NDPS Act (Ex.P.10) to the Superintendent of Police Ajmer on May 29, 2003 at 11.30 a.m. Same reads as under : " lsok esa Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; ftyk vtesj fo"k;0 voS/k eknd inkFkZ ( MksMk ) dh lwpuk vUrxZr /kkjk 42 N.D.P.S. Act. egksn;th] mijksDr fo"k; vUrxZr fuosnu gSA fd eq> SI pSukjke Fkkuk ulhjkckn lnj dk vkt fnukad 29-5-2003 le; 11-30 AM ij tfj;s eq[kchj bZryk feyh fd V~d ua0 RJ 19 G 3115 ,y0ih0 tks/kiqj cksMh dh gSA ftldk pkyd lkojjke gSA tks HkhyokM+k dh rjQ ls MksMks ds cksjs Hkjs gqos ysdj vtesj dh rjQ vk jgk gSA bldh dk;Zokgh ds fy, eSa SI PkSukjke o pkj e; tkIrk ds jokuk gksrk gwaA fyf[kr lwpuk Jheku dks izsf"kr gSA " Copy of it was also sent to the Addl. S.P.(R) Ajmer. Thereafter SI alongwith police constables proceeded to Byepass Magari. At Byepass Magri SI, gave notice Ex. P.1 to Bhanwar lal Head Constable (PW.3) to bring independent witnesses. S.P.(R) Ajmer. Thereafter SI alongwith police constables proceeded to Byepass Magari. At Byepass Magri SI, gave notice Ex. P.1 to Bhanwar lal Head Constable (PW.3) to bring independent witnesses. Bhanwarlal (PW.3) brought witnesses Umrao Singh (PW.1) and Jagdish Singh (PW.2) who gave consent for becoming witnesses. He alerted guards to stop entry of vehicles coming from the side of Bhilwara. Truck driver on seeing the stopping of entry of vehicles moved the truck back and he was stopped at some distance. One person from the truck ran away and the driver of the truck disclosed his name Sanwarram. SI Chenaram (PW.4) gave notice Ex. P.3 to Sanwarram of section 50 of NDPS Act and asked him whether he is interested for searching his vehicle by a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer. Notice Ex. P.3 reads as under : vkidks mijksDr eksrfcjku ds le{k lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd eu SI pSukjke dks eq[kchj ls bryk feyh gS fd vkids V~d ua0 RJ 19 G 3115 esa eknd inkFkZ MksMk iksLV Hkjk gqvk gSA ftldh ryk'kh yh tkuh gS vkidks blds fy, Lora=rk gS fd vki fdlh Hkh eft0 lk0 ;k jktif=r vf/kdkjh ds le{k ryk'kh fyok ldrs gSA vki viuk tokc fyf[kr esa is'k djsA Sanwarram gave his consent to be searched by a Gazetted officer or Magistrate. He stated in writing on Ex. P.3 as under : eSa esjh o V~d dh ryk'kh fdlh jktif=r vf/kdkjh ;k eftLV~sV ls fyokuk pkgrk gwaA sd/- lkojjke Head Constable Bhanwar Lal (PW.3) was sent in a Govt. Jeep to Nasirabad. Bhanwarlal (PW.3) brought Sharavan Lal Gurjar, Tehsildar (PW.8). Sharavan Lal Gurjar was introduced to Sanwarram and he gave his consent Ex. P.2 for search by him. Extracted portion of consent reads as under : blh oDr ekfQd bryk eksds ij Jh Jo.k yky xqtZj rglhynkj ulhjkckn ekSds ij i/kkjs ftudk ifjp; nsrs gq;s lkoj jke dks voxr djk;k fd ;g jktif=r vf/kdkjh gS vki pkgs rks buds le{k ryk'kh fyok ldrk gSA bl ej lkoj jke us crk;k fd vkidks esjs V~d esa MksMk iksLr gksus dh iw.kZ lwpuk feyh gS rks esa viuh ryk'kh eksds ij mi0 rglhy nkj lkgc ds le{k vkidks nsus dh lgefr izdV djrk gwaA On Ex. P.2 Sanwarram put his signature at place G to H. E to F is signature of Jagdish Singh witness and A to B is signature of Umrao Singh and Sarvanlal Tehsildar put his signature at place I to J.In the Truck 59 Gunny Bags full with Capsule of Poppy were found. Chenaram PW.4 sent Sohanlal Constable to bring weighing material. Ratanlal (PW.6) and Gopal (PW.7) came with weighing material. On weighing Gunny Bags total weight 2341.500 Kgs. were found. From 10 seized Gunny Bags 1 kg. two samples each were collected and all were marked A 1 to A 20. All these Gunny Bags were also sealed and marked as B l to B 10. Rest of the Gunny Bags were also sealed and marked as B 11 to B 59. The seizure memo of seized material is Ex. P.4. Accused Sanwarram was arrested and his truck was also seized. Sanwarram was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P.6 and Truck was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P.6. At the time of arrest the accused Sanwarram was searched and from his pocket Rs. 3115 were recovered with one notice under section 50 of the NDPS Act. PW.4 Chenaram on reaching Police Station, deposited the recovered material. Report about it is Ex. P.11 and FIR Ex. P.12 was chalked out. Information under section 57 of the NDPS Act was sent to the higher police officers vide Ex. P.16. PW.9 Laxminarain Constable took samples to FSL on June 4, 2003 along with forwarding letter of SP Ex.P.21. SP Ajmer sent letter Ex. P.22 . After depositing the sampels to FSL, FSL gave receipt Ex. P.20 and after examination of samples sent the report Ex. P.31.After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused appellant under section 8/ 15 NDPS Act. The case was registered as Sessions Case No. 27 of 2003 State v. Sanwarram in the court of Special Judge NDPS Cases Ajmer. The Special Judge charged the accused under section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. The accused appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant in his statement stated that he was servant (Khalasi) in Truck No. RJ 19 G 3115. Truck driver filled up Bags of rice chaff. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. The accused appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant in his statement stated that he was servant (Khalasi) in Truck No. RJ 19 G 3115. Truck driver filled up Bags of rice chaff. Truck was stopped near police station and the SI demanded Rs. 1000/- which driver refused to give. On this Chenaram and driver fought with each other and driver ran away and hence this forged case was lodged. In defence he produced two witnesses. After completion of trial, the Special Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant vide his judgment dated July 16, 2004 as mentioned above. 3. Mr. M.L. Vishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant argued that no offence under section 8/15 of the NDPS Act is made out against the accused on the evidence produced by the prosecution. The learened counsel averred that the independent witnesses PW.1 Umrao Singh and PW.2 Jagdish Singh, who were motbirs were declared hostile and hence in the absence of proof of narcotic drug recovered from the accused appellant, the jdugment of conviction is liable to be set aside. The provisions of section 42 of the NDSPS Act have not been complied with. PW.6 Ratan Lal and PW.7 Gopal, who weighed the material loaded in the truck but both these witnesses did not support the prosecution case and both of them have been declared hostile. In these circumstances, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed and it is concocted case. The independent witnesses produced by the prosecution have all been declared hostile and the accused appellant should not be convicted on the basis of evidence of one department only. The material sealed was not resealed at the police station and hence the provisions of sections 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with and thus the judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. Sanwarram was only servant (Khalasi)and not driver and he was not knowing about the narcotic drug loaded in the truck and thus he is entitled to be acquitted. Chenaram was not SHO Police Station and he was only Incharge and thus he was not authorised under section 42 of the NDPS Act to proceed and thus the whole proceedings are liable to be quashed. Chenaram was not SHO Police Station and he was only Incharge and thus he was not authorised under section 42 of the NDPS Act to proceed and thus the whole proceedings are liable to be quashed. The samples placed in the malkhana were tempered and thus the same could not be handed over to the FSL in sealed condition and thus the whole proceedings is liable to be set aside. The defence witnesses produced by the accused appellant proved before the court that accused appellant Sanwarram was not the driver of the truck as he was not knowing driving and he was simply servant (Khalasi) and he has been falsely implicated in the case. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the cases reported in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and anr. 2008 R.Cr.D. 592 (SC) Jitendra and anr. v. State of M.P. (2003-04 Cr.L.r. (SC) Supp.) 699 , Gaunter Edwin Kircher v. State of Goa (1993 SCC (Cr.) 803) Rohtas v. State of Rajasthan 2006 (1) R.Cr.D. 376 (Raj.) , Guneshgar v. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Cr. Appeal No. 715 of 2006 decided on August 7, 2008 at Jopdhpur), State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram 1980 Cr.L.R. (SC) 84 , State of Rajasthan v. Gurmait Singh 2005 R.Cr.D. (SC) 554) , Bhanwar lal v. State (S.B.Cr. Appeal No. 481 of 2001 decided on October 17, 2005 at Jodhpur), Kailash Chandra v. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Criminal Appeal No. 921 of 2003 decided on July 24, 2008 at Jodhpur) and State of Rajasthan v. Gurmail Singh 2005 (3) SRJ 422). 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the judgment of conviction and argued that Narcotic Substance was recovered from the accused appellant. The trial court rightly convicted the accused appellant. The findings arrived at by the trial court are just and proper. The trial court critically examined the material available on record and judgment of conviction is based on evidence and the accused appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced. The learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on Karamjit Singh v. State (2003) 5 SCC 291 ) , Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra ( AIR 1956 SC 217 ) , State of Maharashtra v. P.K. Pathak ) AIR 1980 SC 1224 ) and Tulsi Prasad v. State of Rajasthan 2006 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 15) 5. The learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on Karamjit Singh v. State (2003) 5 SCC 291 ) , Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra ( AIR 1956 SC 217 ) , State of Maharashtra v. P.K. Pathak ) AIR 1980 SC 1224 ) and Tulsi Prasad v. State of Rajasthan 2006 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 15) 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. Before proceeding further it is necessary to have a look at the relevant provisions of the Sections 42, 50 and 57. of the NDPS Act in particular. 6. Sub-section (1) of Section 42 lays down that the empowered officer, if has a prior information given by any person, he should necessarily take it down in writing and where he has reason to believe from his personal knowledge that offences under Chapter IV have been committed or that materials which may furnish evidence of commission of such offences are concealed in any building etc. he may carry out the arrest or search, without a warrant between sunrise and sunset, and he may do so without recording his reasons of belief.The proviso to sub-section (1) lays down that if the empowered officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place, at any time between sunset and sunrise, after recording the grounds of his belief. Vide sub-section (2) of Section 42, the empowered officer who takes down information in writing or records the grounds of his belief under the proviso to sub-section (1), shall forthwith send a copy of the same to his immediate official superior. Section 50 of the Act prescribes the conditions under which search of a person shall be conducted. Sub-section (1) provides that when the empowered officer is about to search any suspected person, he shall, if the person to be searched so requires, take him to the nearest Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate for the purpose. Under sub-section (2) it is laid down that if such request is made by the suspected person, the officer who is to take the search, may detain the suspect until he can be brought before such Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. Under sub-section (2) it is laid down that if such request is made by the suspected person, the officer who is to take the search, may detain the suspect until he can be brought before such Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. Sub-section (3) lays down that when the person to be searched is brought beforesuch a Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate and such Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate finds that there are no reasonable grounds for search, he shall forthwith discharge the person to be searched, otherwise he shall direct that the search be made. On its plain reading, Section 50 would come into play only in the case of a search of a person as distinguished from search of any premises etc. However, if the empowered officer, without any prior information as contemplated by Section 42 of the Act makes a search or causes arrest of person during the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence and on completion of that search, a contraband under the NDPS Act is also recovered, the requirements of Section 50 of the Act are not attracted. Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act lays down that no female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. This provision is similar to the one contained in Section 52 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and Section 51(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to search of females. Section 51(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down that whenever it is necessary to cause a female to be searched, the search shall be made by another female with strict regard to decency. The empowered officer must, therefore, act in the manner provided by Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act read with Section 51(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 whenever it is found necessary to cause a female to be searched. The document prepared by the Investigating Officer at the spot must invariably disclose that the search was conducted in the aforesaid manner and the name of the female official who carried out the personal search of the concerned female should also be disclosed. The personal search memo of the female concerned should indicate compliance with the aforesaid provisions. The document prepared by the Investigating Officer at the spot must invariably disclose that the search was conducted in the aforesaid manner and the name of the female official who carried out the personal search of the concerned female should also be disclosed. The personal search memo of the female concerned should indicate compliance with the aforesaid provisions. Failure to do so may not only affect the credibility of the prosecution case but may also be found as violative of the basic right of a female to be treated with decency and proper dignity. The provisions of Sections 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. are not inconsistent with the provisions of the NDPS Act and are applicable for affecting search, seizure or arrest under the NDPS Act also. However, when an empowered officer carrying on the investigation including search, seizure or arrest under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, comes across a person being in possession of the narcotic drugs or the psychotropic substance, then he must follow from that stage onwards the provisions of the NDPS Act and continue the investigation as provided thereunder. If the investigating officer is not an empowered officer then it is expected of him that he must inform the empowered officer under the NDPS Act, who should thereafter proceed from that stage in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. The Apex Court in Balbir Singhs case (1998 ) 2 SCC 724 after referring to a number of judgments, opined that failure to comply with the provisions of Cr.P.C. in respect of search and seizure and particularly those of Sections 100, 102, 103 and 165 per se does not vitiate the prosecution case. If there is such a violation, what the courts have to see is whether any prejudice was caused to the accused. While appreciating the evidence and other relevant factors, the courts should bear in mind that there was such a violation and evaluate the evidence on record keeping that in view. What is the import of the expression if such person so requires he shall be taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and his search shall be made before such Officer or Magistrate as occurring in Section 50. What is the import of the expression if such person so requires he shall be taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and his search shall be made before such Officer or Magistrate as occurring in Section 50. Does the expression not visualise that to enable the concerned person to require his search to be conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, the empowered officer is under an obligation to inform him that he has such a right ?Section 57 of the NDPS Act provides that whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate superior official. 7. At this stage, relevant case of the Apex Court, is necessary to be examined. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (Five Judge Bench) (1999 ) 6 SCC 172 propounded following conclusions : (1) That when an empowered officer or a duly authorised officer acting on prior information is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to inform the concerned person of his right under Sub-section (1) of Section 50 of being taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or the nearest Magistrate for making the search. However, such information may not necessarily be in writing; (2) That failure to inform the concerned person about the existence of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate would cause prejudice to an accused; (3) That a search made, by an empowered officer, on prior information, without informing the person of his right that, if he so requires, he shall be taken before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate for search and in case he so opts, failure to conduct his search before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, may not vitiate the trial but would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused, where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of the possession of the illicit article, recovered from his person, during a search conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act; (4) That there is indeed need to protect society from criminals. The societal intent in safety will suffer if persons who commit crimes are let off because the evidence against them is to be treated as if it does not exist. The answer, therefore, is that the investigating agency must follow the procedure as envisaged by the statute scrupulously and the failure to do so must be viewed by the higher authorities seriously inviting action against the concerned official so that the laxity on the part of the investigating authority is curbed. In every case the end result is important but the means to achieve it must remain above board. The remedy cannot be worse than the disease itself. The legitimacy of judicial process may come under cloud if the court is seen to condone acts of lawlessness conducted by the investigating agency during search operations and may also undermine respect for law and may have the effect of unconscionably compromising the administration of justice. That cannot be permitted. An accused is entitled to a fair trial. A conviction resulting from an unfair trial is contrary to our concept of justice. The use of evidence collected in breach of the safeguards 50 have by Section 50 at the trial, would render the trial unfair. (5) That whether or not the safeguards provided in Section 50 have been duly observed would have to be determined by the Court on the basis of evidence led at the trial. Finding on that issue, one way or the other, would be relevant for recording an order of conviction or acquittal. (5) That whether or not the safeguards provided in Section 50 have been duly observed would have to be determined by the Court on the basis of evidence led at the trial. Finding on that issue, one way or the other, would be relevant for recording an order of conviction or acquittal. Without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to establish, at the trial, that the provisions of Section 50, and particularly the safeguards provided therein were duly complied with, it would not be permissible to cut short a criminal trial; (6) That in the context in which the protection has been incorporated in Section 50 for the benefit of the person intended to be searched, we do not express any opinion whether the provisions of Section 50 are mandatory or directory, but, hold that failure to inform the concerned person of his right as emanating from Sub-section (1) of Section 50, may render the recovery of the contraband suspect and the conviction and sentence of an accused bad and unsustainable in law; (7) That an illicit article seized from the person of an accused during search conducted in violation of the safeguards provided in Section 50 of the Act cannot be used as evidence of proof of unlawful possession of the contraband on the accused though any other material recovered during that search may be relied upon by the prosecution, in other proceedings, against an accused, notwithstanding the recovery of that material during an illegal search; (8) A presumption under Section 54 of the Act can only be raised after the prosecution has established that the accused was found to be in possession of the contraband in a search conducted in accordance with the mandate of Section 50. An illegal search cannot entitle the prosecution to raise a presumption under Section 54 of the Act (9) That the judgment in Pooran Mal's case cannot be understood to have laid down that an illicit article seized during a search of a person, on prior information, conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, can by itself be used as evidence of unlawful possession of the illicit article on the person from whom the contraband has been seized during the illegal search; (10) That the judgment in Ali Mustaffa's case correctly interprets and distinguishes the judgment in Pooran Mal's case and the broad observations made in Pirthi Chand's case and Jasbir Singh's case are not in tune with the correct exposition of law as laid down in Pooran Mal's case. The above conclusions are not a summary of our judgment and have to be read and considered in the light of the entire discussion contained in the earlier part. 8. On the basis of the above conclusions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court it is necessary to have a look at the evidence adduced before the trial court by the prosecution.PW.1 Umrao Singh, one of the independent Motbir of the recovery was declared hostile. He admitted his signature on Ex.P.1 for becoming witness in the NDPS case. He also admitted his signatures on Ex. P.2 consent of Sanwarram for search, Ex.P.3 consent of Sanwarram for search before Gazetted officer or Judicial Magistrate by Sanwarram, Ex. P.4 Seizure memo of 59 Gunny bags of Capsule of Poppy and 20 samples and fixing of seal thereon (narcotic drug) on each and every page, Ex. P.5 arrest memo of Sanwarram, Ex.P.6 seizure memo of truck. He refused to give statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. as stated in Ex. P.7 to the police.PW.2 Jagdish Singh, another independent Motbir of the recovery was declared hostile. He admitted his signature on Ex.P.1 for becoming witness in the NDPS case. He also admitted his signatures on Ex. P.2 consent of Sanwarram for search, Ex.P.3 consent of Sanwarram for search before Gazetted officer or Judicial Magistrate by Sanwarram, Ex. P.4 Seizure memo of 59 Gunny bags of Capsule of Poppy and 20 samples (narcotic drug) on each and every page, Ex. P.5 arrest memo of Sanwarram, Ex.P.6 seizure memo of truck. He refused to give statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. to the police. P.4 Seizure memo of 59 Gunny bags of Capsule of Poppy and 20 samples (narcotic drug) on each and every page, Ex. P.5 arrest memo of Sanwarram, Ex.P.6 seizure memo of truck. He refused to give statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. to the police. Even fixing of seals on the samples was also denied by him in his presence.PW.3 Bhanwar Lal Sharma, Head Constable No. 11 Police Station Nasirabad fully supported to the prosecution case. He admitted instructions of SI Chenaram for bringing two independent witnesses. In his statement before the Court he stated as under : " fnukad 29-5-2003 dks eSa iqfyl Fkkuk ulhjkckn lnj ij gSM dkalVscy ds in ij dk;Zjr FkkA ml fnu le; 11-30 , ,e ij tfj;s eq[kfcj pSukjke ,l vkbZ dks lwpuk feyh fd HkhyokM+k jksM+ dh rjQ ls ,d V~d vkj ts 19 th 3333 ftlesa MksMk iksLr vk jgk gS ftl ij M~kbZoj lkaojjke gS vkSj V~d ds mij feySV~h dyj dk f=iky yxk gqvk gSA mDr lwpuk ds vuqlkj pSukjke ,l vkbZ ds lkFk esa rFkk , ,l vkbZ 'kjhQ vgen] jkedqekj ,p lh] dkukjke dkalVscy] lksgu yky dkalVscy e; ljdkjh thi o pkyd lR;ukjk;.k ds ckbZ ikl jksM+ ljgn exjh ds fy, jokuk gq,A tgka igqapus ij pSukjke th us eq>s fyf[kr esa ,d gqdeukek Lora= xokg ykus ds fy, fn;k ftl ij esa ulhjkckn cl LVs.M igqapk rFkk xokg mejko flag o txnh'k flag dks lkFk ysdj eksds ij ckbZ ikl ij igqapk o pSukjke ds le{k is'k fd;kA gqdeukek izn'kZ ih&1 gS ftl ij th ls ,p esjk iz"Bkdau o gLrk{kj gSA " PW.4 Chenaram, SI at that time at Nasirabad stated about the information received by him and how he has dealt with the matter. He fully supported the prosecution case. He recorded the information received from informant in Ex. P.9 and put his signature A to B. He stated that he sent the information under Section 42 NDPS Act to the SP vide Ex. P.10 wherein he has put his signature. He fully supported the prosecution case. He recorded the information received from informant in Ex. P.9 and put his signature A to B. He stated that he sent the information under Section 42 NDPS Act to the SP vide Ex. P.10 wherein he has put his signature. Thereafter stated about reaching at the place of spot and giving instructions to Bhanwar Lal for bringing two independent witnesses which is Ex.P.1 wherein he has put his signature A to B. He stated about putting of signature by Umrao Singh at place C to D and by Jagdish at place E to F. He admitted giving of notice under section 50 NDPS Act to Sanwarram. Consent was given by Sanwarram on Ex. P.3 where he put his signature E to F. He admitted putting of signature by Jagdish Singh at place C to D and at place A to B by Umrao Singh. At place G to H Sanwarraam stated that he wants to be searched before Gazetted Officer or Judicial Magistrate. He immediately sent Bhanwar Lal for bringing Gazetted Officer in a Jeep to Nasirabad. Bhanwarlal brought sharavan Lal Tehsildar. Sanwarram gave his consent in Ex. P.2 for search by Sharavan Lal SI, where he put his signature G to H. I to J is signature by Sharvan Lal. At place C to D witness put his signature. He immediately sent Bhanwar Lal for bringing Gazetted Officer in a Jeep to Nasirabad. Bhanwarlal brought sharavan Lal Tehsildar. Sanwarram gave his consent in Ex. P.2 for search by Sharavan Lal SI, where he put his signature G to H. I to J is signature by Sharvan Lal. At place C to D witness put his signature. In his statement he stated about the weighing and seizing of material as under : rksy tksx dh dk;Zokgh djuh Fkh blfy, dkalVscy lksguyky dks ljdkjh thi ls rksynkj] iynkj o dkaVk ckV ykus ds fy, HkstkA dkalVscy lksguyky] rksynkj jruyky dks] iynkj xksiky dks ysdj dkaVk ckV lfgr ekSds ij vk;kA muds vkus ds ckn lfgr ekSds ij vk;k muds vkus ds ckn V~d esa MksMk iksLr ls Hkjs gq, dqy 59 cksjs ik;s x;sA MksMk iksLr dk rksy 2341 fdyks 500 xzke cksjks lfgr otu Ikk;k x;kA Hkjs gq, cksjksa esa ls izR;sd ls ,d ,d fdyks otu ds nks nks MksMk IkksLr lSEiy gsrq fudkys x;s vkSj lsEiyksa dks lhYk eksgj fd;k x;kA vkSj lsEiy ij ekdkZ dze'k% ,&1 ls ,&20 yxk;s x;sA cksjks dks okfil lhy eksgj djds ekdkZ ch&1 ls ch&10 yxk;s x;s o 'ks"k cksjksa dks Hkh lhy eksgj djds ekdkZ ch&11 ls ch&59 yxk;s x;sA ekSds ij gh QnZ tCrh ih&4 ftu ij lhy ls cksjksa o uewuksa dks lhy eksgj fd;k Fkk og QnZ ij ,Dl LFkkuks ij vafdr fd;k x;kA QnZ ij ,Dl LFkkuksa ij vafdr fd;k x;kA QnZ ij bZ ls ,Q esjs] , ls ch mejko ds o lh ls Mh txnh'k flag th ls ,p lkaojjke vfHk;qDr ds] vkbZ ls ts rglhynkj ds] ds ls ,y xksiky ds] ,e ls ,u jruyky ds nLr[kr gS 'ks"k vU; TkkCrs ds Hkh nLr[kr djok;s FksA From his evidence it is clear that the samples were properly sealed and recovered material was also sealed in the presence of Motbir and other persons.PW.5 Chenaram Constable No.477 stated in his statement about sending of report under section 42 to the S.P. Addl. S.P. and obtaining receipt from them on Ex. P.10 where C to D endorsement and signatures are by S.P. Ajmer and E to F endorsement and signature by Addl. S.P. He stated that on coming back to Police Station at 7.20 p.m. he entered his return back in the Rojnamcha which is Ex. P.14. S.P. and obtaining receipt from them on Ex. P.10 where C to D endorsement and signatures are by S.P. Ajmer and E to F endorsement and signature by Addl. S.P. He stated that on coming back to Police Station at 7.20 p.m. he entered his return back in the Rojnamcha which is Ex. P.14. He also stated about sending of report under section 57 of the NDPS Act to the SP. He stated that he leave the Police Station and entered his entries in the Rojnamcha Ex. P.15 and copy of which is Ex. P.15 A. SP Ajmer put his signature and endorsement A to B on Ex. P.16. On returning back to Police Station he marked his endorsement in the Rojnamcha which is Ex. P.17 and copy of which is Ex.P.17 A.PW.6 Ratan Lal (Paldar) was declared hostile about weighing material recovered from the truck. He only admitted his signature on Ex. P.4 at place M to N.PW.7 Gopal (Paldar) was also declared hostile. He also refused to weight 59 Gunny bags recovered from the truck. He admitted his signature on Ex. P.4 at place K to L. PW.8 Sharavanlal, Tehsildar fully supported the prosecution case. He only admitted his signature on Ex. P.4 at place M to N.PW.7 Gopal (Paldar) was also declared hostile. He also refused to weight 59 Gunny bags recovered from the truck. He admitted his signature on Ex. P.4 at place K to L. PW.8 Sharavanlal, Tehsildar fully supported the prosecution case. In his statement before the court he stated thus : ;g ckr ml M~kbZoj dks Hkh Fkkusnkj th us crkbZ fd og rglhynkj th gS vksj pkgks rks buds lkeus ryk'kh fyok ldrs gks rks mlus viuh lgefr ekSf[kd :I ls ns nh FkhA QnZ lgefr izn'kZ ih&2 ij vkbZ ls ts esjs nLr[kr gSA blds ckn Fkkusnkj th us o vU; LVkQ okyks us Hkh V~d dk f=iky mrkjk vkSj muesa tks cksjs Fks mudh ryk'kh yh rks og cksjs MksMk iksLr ls Hkjs gq, FksA fQj Fkkusnkj th us uki rkSy djus ds fy, iynkj] rjktw ckV o rksyus okys dks cqyok fn;kA og dqy 59 cksjs Fks ftuesa lHkh esa MksMk iksLr Hkjk FkkA mu 59 cksjks dks lHkh dk vyx vyx djds rksy djok;kA fQj cksjks esa ls mUgksus 1&1 fdyks ds dqy 20 lSEiy fudkys o diM+s dh Fksfy;ksa esa vyx vyx Mkydj iSd fd;k o lhy eksgj fd;kA ekSds ij QnZ cjkenxh cukbZ xbZ tks izn'kZ ih&4 gS ftl ij vkbZ ls ts esjs nLr[kr gS QnZ ij ,Dl LFkku ij uewuk lhy vafdr dh gS ;gh lhy mDr uewuksa ij Hkh vafdr dh Fkh MksMk iksLr cksjks dk foLrjr rksy Hkh bl QnZ esa vafdr fd;k gSA PW.9 Laxminarain Constable No.9 stated about the deposit of samples in FSL. In his statement he stated thus : ml jkst eky[kkuk bUpktZ Jh fodzeflag us 10 iSfdV lhy'kqnk gkyr esa o ,l ih lkgc ds uke dk ,d i= fn;k Fkk ftldks ysdj esa ,l ih dk;kZy; vtesj x;k vkSj lEcfU/kr fyfid ugha gksus ls ml jkst i= cuokdj lh/kk t;iqj ds fy, jokuk gks x;kA eSa igqpk rc dk;kZy; cUn gksus ls eky iSfdV ml jkst tEkk ugha djok;sA fnsukd 2-6-2003 dks eSaus eky[kkuk bUpktZ fodze flag ls mDr iSfdV o i= fy;k vkSj ,l ih dk;kZy; vtesj i= cuokdj lh/kk t;iqj ds fy, jokuk gks x;k A eSa igqapk rc dk;kZy; cUn gksus ls eky iSfdV ml esa jkst tek ugha djok;s A jk=h esa 'kkL=huxj Fkkus ij :dkA fnukad 3-6-2003 dks vodk'k gksus ls eky tek ugha djok ldkA fnukad 4-6-2003 dks lqcg dk;kZy; [kqyus ij eSaus isfdVl tek djok;s vkSj jlhn izkIr dh tks izn'kZ ih 22 gSA eSaus mDr jlhn ykdj ,l ,p vks dks lqiqnZ dhA eq>s Fkkus ls ,l ih lkgc ds uke tks i= fn;k Fkk mldh izfr izn'kZ ih 21 gSA He stated about endorsement in the Rojnamcha as under : fnukad 31-5-2003 dh Fkkus ls jokuxh o vken dh jiV dze'k% izn'kZ ih&23 o 24 gS ftudh izfra;k izn'kZ ih&23 , o 24 , gSA fnukad 2-6-2003 dh jokuxh dh jiV izn'kZ ih 25 gS] fnukad 4-6-2003 dh vken jiV izn'kZ ih 26 gS ftudh izfra;k dze'k% izn'kZ ih 25 , o 26 , gSA eSus eky[kkuk jftLVj ij eky izkIr djrs le; gLrk{kj Hkh fd;s FksA Eky[kkus ls eky izkIr fd;k o eSaus ,Q ,l esa tek djok;k rc rd esjs ikl lhy'kqnk gkyr esa gh jgk FkkA PW.10 Vikram Singh, Head Constable No.180 was Malkhana Incharge. He stated in his statement thus : buesa ls 10 lhy'kqnk iSfdV fnukad 31-5-2003 dk ,Q lh y{ehukjk;.k dks ,Q ,l ,y ds uke i= cuokus ds fy, esus fn;s ftldk bUnzkt izn'kZ ih 27 ds Hkkx lh ls Mh esa gS ftl ij bZ ls ,Q esjs rFkk th ls ,p y{ehukjk;.k ds nLr[kr gSA ml jkst ,Q ,l ,y ds uke i= ugha cuus ls mDr 10 lhylqnk iSfdV dkalVscy y{ehukjk;.k okfil yk;k ftudks eSaus eky[kkuk jftLVj ds Hkkx vkbZ ls ts ,p y{ehukjk;.k ds y?kq gLrk{kj gSA fnukad 2-6-2003 dks 10 mDr lhy'kqnk iSfdV y{ehukjk;.k dks iqu% fn;s ,Q ,l ,y esa tek djokus ds funsZ'k fn;sA tks fnukad 4-6-2003 dks eky tek djokdj jlhn ysdj okfil vk;k ftldk bUnzkt eSaus eky[kkuk jftLV~j izn'kZ ih 27 ds Hkkx ds ls ,y o ,e ls ,u HkkXk esa fd;k gSA PW.11 Mohanlal, SHO Police Station Nasirabad stated that on 28.5.2003 from 5 p.m. to 29.5.2003 upto 6.50 p.m. On 20.5.2003 when he returned back Chenaram SI submitted report Ex. P.11 before him.where C to D is police proceedings and he put his signature E to F. FIR chalked out is Ex. P.12. He recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. as stated by them. He stated about the sending of letter Ex. P.21 to SP for sending samples to FSL where he put his signature A to B. Report from FSL was received by him which is Ex. P.31. Information under section 57 of the NDPS Act was sent to the higher officials which is Ex. P.16 where he put his signature E to F. He filed challan before the court under section 8/18 NDPS Act against accused Sanwarram and another accused Asu @ Aashia is absconding. The accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.c.stated that he was servant (Khalasi) in Truck No. RJ 19 G 3115. Truck driver filled up Bags of rice chaff. Truck was stopped near police station and the SI demanded Rs. 1000/- which driver refused to give. On this Chenaram and driver fought with each other and driver ran away and hence this forged case was lodged. Truck driver filled up Bags of rice chaff. Truck was stopped near police station and the SI demanded Rs. 1000/- which driver refused to give. On this Chenaram and driver fought with each other and driver ran away and hence this forged case was lodged. In defence he produced two witnesses in order to prove that he was Khalasi and not driver.The argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the independent witnesses PW.1 Umrao Singh and PW.2 Jagdish Singh , who were Motbirs were declared hostile and hence in the absence of proof of narcotic drug recovered from the accused appellant, the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside, cannot be accepted. The independent witnesses PW.1 Umrao Singh and PW.2 Jagdish Singh , who were motbirs were declared hostile, but in their statements before the court they supported the prosecution case and admitted their signatures on Ex.P.1 for becoming witness in the NDPS case. Further they also admitted their signatures on Ex. P.2 consent of Sanwarram for search, Ex.P.3 consent of Sanwarram for search before Gazetted officer or Judicial Magistrate by Sanwarram, Ex. P.4 Seizure memo of 59 Gunny bags of Capsule of Poppy and 20 samples and fixing of seal thereon (narcotic drug) on each and every page, Ex. P.5 arrest memo of Sanwarram, Ex.P.6 seizure memo of truck. The other witnesses to these documents in their statements also admitted their signatures. Thus the argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellant on this ground cannot be accepted.The other argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the provisions of section 42 of the NDSPS Act have not been complied with. As submitted above and it is further submitted that the SI Chenaram in the first instance sent information to the higher police officers i.e. S.P. Ajmerand Addl. S.P. Ajmer under section 42 of the NDPS Act through constable PW.5 Chenaram, who after returning from giving report of section 42 NDPS Act even recorded his return in the Rojnamcha Ex. P.14 copy of which is Ex. P.14 A. He also obtained receipt of S.P. on Ex. P.10. PW.5 Chenaram also taken report under section 57 of the NDPS Act to the SP Ajmer for which leaving Police Station Nasirabad was noted by him in the Rojnamcha Ex. P. 15 copy of which is Ex. P.14 copy of which is Ex. P.14 A. He also obtained receipt of S.P. on Ex. P.10. PW.5 Chenaram also taken report under section 57 of the NDPS Act to the SP Ajmer for which leaving Police Station Nasirabad was noted by him in the Rojnamcha Ex. P. 15 copy of which is Ex. P.15 A. Receipt of S.P. Ajmer is on Ex. P.16 at place A to B. On returning back to Police Station he marked his presence in the Rojnamcha in Ex. P.17 copy of which is Ex. P.17A. Thus the argument regarding non compliance of section 42 and 57 of the NDSP Act cannot be accepted.It is true that PW.6 Ratan Lal and PW.7 Gopal, who weighed the material loaded in the truck but both these witnesses did not support the prosecution case and both of them have been declared hostile. Both these witnesses also admitted their signatures on Ex.P.4, which is recovery memo. Ratan lal (PW.6 ) put his signature M to N and Gopal (PW.7) put his signature at place K to L. The other persons who have also admitted their signatures on recovery memo Ex. P.4 and thus there is no necessity to place any further evidence on record regarding recovery of narcotic drug from the accused appellant from the truck. Thus the argument of the counsel for the accused appellant cannot be accepted that the case of the prosecution cannot be believed and it is concocted case. The independent witnesses produced by the prosecution have all been declared hostile but they admitted the prosecution case of recovery of contraband from the accused appellant along with other persons, who have made signatures on Ex.P.1 to Ex. P.6 The material sealed was in large quantity and the police officials in these circumstances did not think to reseal and the samples which were sent to the FSL have been received by the FSL in sealed condition and it is written on the FSL report that the material has been received in sealed condition , which is also proved by the prosecution by producing evidence of Laxminaraian (PW.9), who handed over these sealed packets to the FSL. Thus there cannot be any question of not complying with the provisions of sections 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. Thus there cannot be any question of not complying with the provisions of sections 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The further argument of the learned counsel that Sanwarram was only servant (Khalasi)and not driver and he was not knowing about the narcotic drug loaded in the truck. PW.1 Umrao Singh, who was declared hostile has stated in his statement before the court as under : " Fkkusnkjth us dgk fd vHkh V~d vkusokyk gS vki ;gh ij :d tkvksA blds ckn djhc nks cts ckanuokM+k jksM+ ls ,d V~d iqfyl xkM+h dks ns[k dj okfil VuZ gks x;kA fQj Fkkusnkj th us thi dks nksM+kbZ vkSj V~d ds vkM+h yxk nhA blds ckn V~d M~kbZoj o mlds ikl cSBk ,d vkneh Fkk ftlesa ls M~kbZoj dks rks idM+ fy;k vkSj lkFk okyk ogka ij Hkkx x;kA M~kbZoj dk uke lkaojjke fo'uksbZ FkkA " From the statement of Umrao Singh (PW.1), though he was declared hostile but he stated in his statement that one person ran away and truck driver was caught, whose name was Sanwarram. Thus the defence witness produced by the accused appellant in his defence cannot be accepted. The accused appellant was driver of the truck and cannot be termed as Khalasi (servant).The SHO Mohan Lal in his statement stated that he has gone for giving his evidence before the ACJM Court (Communal Riots) Pali for giving his evidence and was on official duty and he has handed over the charge of SHO to Chenaram, SI from 5.00 p.m. 28.5.2003 till 29.5.2003 6.50 p.m. Thus the argument of the counsel for the accused appellant that Chenaram was not SHO Police Station cannot be accepted. Chenaram being Incharge and SHO at that time sent the information under section 42 of the NDPS Act and proceeded in accordance with law.The samples placed in the malkhana were not tempered and were handed over to the FSL in sealed condition, which is also proved by the evidence of PW.9 Laxminarain and document Ex.P.31. Document Ex. P.31 reads as under :"Description of packets The packet(s) Ten in numbers marked A1, A3, A5, A7, A9, A11, A13, A15, A17 and A 19 enclosed within separate cloth cover which were properly sealed bearing impressions which tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded. Document Ex. P.31 reads as under :"Description of packets The packet(s) Ten in numbers marked A1, A3, A5, A7, A9, A11, A13, A15, A17 and A 19 enclosed within separate cloth cover which were properly sealed bearing impressions which tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded. The seals were intact." Description of ArticlesEach of the packet marked A1, A3, A5, A7, A9, A11, A13, A15, A17 and A 19 contained yellowish brown coloured dry crushed vegetable matter resembling framents of poppy capsule enclosed in respective cloth covering weighing 1.020 kg. Alongwith cloth covering in each packet respectively.Result Of Examination On microchemical examination extract of the samples contained in each of the packet marked A1, A3, A5, A7, A9, A11, A13, A15, A17 and A 19 gave positive tests for the presence of chief constituents of opium, hence the samples are of dried crushed capsule of opium poppy from which juice has been extracted." Thus the argument of the learned counsel in these circumstances cannot be accepted. The samples were received in sealed condition by the FSL, which is proved by the FSL in the report and by PW.9 Laxminarain in his court statement.The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the accused appellant may also be looked into.In Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and another (2008 R.Cr.D. 592 (SC) , the fact of recovery has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the same have not been made as per the procedure established by law, their Lordships of the Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order.In Jitendra and another v. State of M.P. (2003)94 Cr.L.R. (SC) (Suppl.) 699 , their Lordships of the Apex Court held that no explanation was given by the prosecution for non production of seized contraband and non examination of Investigation Officer and in those circumstances the benefit of doubt was given to the accused appellants.In Gaunter Edwin Kircher v. State of Goa 1993 SCC (Cr.) 803 only 5 or 7 gms. of small quantity of charas was recovered. of small quantity of charas was recovered. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the small quantity found with the appellant was not meant for his personal consumption and that on the other hand it was meant for sale or distribution, the appellant was held liable to be punished as provided under section 27 of the Act for six months.In Rohtas v. State of Rajasthan (2006 (1) R. Cr.D. 276 (Raj.) contraband material recovered from jeep was not produced in the court and the motbirs have not supported the prosecution story. In those circumstances the accused was acquitted of the charge.In Guneshgar v. State of Rajasthan (supra), this court on account of non compliance of section 55 by not producing the seized articles in court and sealed sample taken to FSL in absence of polythene bags, was treatedto be fatal and the accused was given benefit of doubt.In Bhanwar Lal v. State (supra), the prosecution has not led satisfactory evidence in relation to link evidence and motbir witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case, in those circumstances, the accused was given the benefit of doubt.In Kailash Chandra v. State of Rajasthan (supra), this court found variance in the recovered article as to whether it was in the liquid form or in the sticky form, created heavy doubt about sampling and sending of the sampels of recovered articles to FSL in proper seal, in those circumstances given the benefit of doubt.The cases cited by the learned counsel for the accused appellant cannot help the appellant as the ratio in those cases are not applicable. In the instant case recovery memos and other documents have been proved not only from the evidence of independent witnesses, though declared hostile, but from the statements of other witnesses produced by the prosecution. Thus in these circumstances there was no need to produce the recovered material before the court.The cases cited by the learned Public Prosecutor may also be looked into.In Karamjit Singh v. State (2003) 5 SCC 291 , their Lordships of the Apex Court in para 8 held as under : "8.Shri Sinha, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has vehemently urged that all the witnesses of recovery examined by the prosecution arepolice personnel and in absence of any public witness, their testimony alone should not be held sufficient for sustaining the conviction of the appellant. In our opinion the contention raised is too broadly stated and cannot be accepted. The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down. PW11 Pratap Singh has clearly stated in the opening part of his examination in- chief that ACP Shakti Singh asked some public witnesses to accompany them but they showed their unwillingness. PW10 Rajinder Prasad, SI has given similar statement and has deposed that despite their best efforts no one from public was willing to join the raiding party due to the fear of the terrorists. Exactly similar statement has been given by PW9 R.D. Pandey. We should not forget that the incident took place in November 1990, when terrorism was at its peak in Punjab and neighbouring areas. The ground realities cannot be lost sight of that even in normal circumstances members of public are very reluctant to accompany a police party which is going to arrest a criminal or is embarking upon search of some premises. At the time when the terrorism was at its peak, it is quite natural for members of public to have avoided getting involved in a police operation for search or arrest of a person having links with terrorists. It is noteworthy that during the course of the cross- examination of the witness the defence did not even give any suggestion as to why they were falsely deposing against the appellant. There is absolutely no material or evidence on record to show that the prosecution witnesses had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant who was none else but a colleague of theirs being a member of the same police force. There is absolutely no material or evidence on record to show that the prosecution witnesses had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant who was none else but a colleague of theirs being a member of the same police force. Therefore, the contention raised by Shri Sinha that on account of non-examination of a public witness, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who are police personnel, should not be relied upon has hardly any substance and cannot be accepted." In Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra ( AIR 1956 SC 217 ) in para 40 held as under : "The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons, and it is not a judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds therefor. Such an attitude could do neither credit to the magistracy nor good to the public. It can only only run down the prestige of the police administration." In State of Maharashtra v. P.K. Pathak ( AIR 1980 SC 1224 ) held as under : "9. Merely because P.Ws. 2 and 4 were Customs Officers their evidence could not be rejected outright because they were doubtless competent officers to prove the search and the recoveries. Thus we are unable to agree with the view of the High Court that in the instant case, the confessions of the respondents were not corroborated by the search lists and witnesses to the same." In Tulsi Prasad v. State of Rajathan (2006 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 15) held that the accused gave his consent for search in presence of Dy. S.P.- Link evidence not missing- Samples remained intact till reaching to laboratory- No non-compliance of Section 50. Held, conviction is justified.On the basis of the cases cited by the learned Public Prosecutor mentioned above, the prosecution has been able to prove that the recovered gunny bags of Poppy husk were in the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused appellant and he had knowledge of the same. There is no contradiction, inconsistency and un naturalities in the statements of prosecution witnesses produced by the prosecution. The prosecution has been able to prove link between the accused and the goods allegedly recovered from the truck. No links are missing from the chain of prosecution case. There is no contradiction, inconsistency and un naturalities in the statements of prosecution witnesses produced by the prosecution. The prosecution has been able to prove link between the accused and the goods allegedly recovered from the truck. No links are missing from the chain of prosecution case. The evidence of the police personnel cannot be discarded.The accused appellant was driver of the truck from whose possession huge quantity of poppy capsules was recovered and he was not having any licence for carrying the same and thus the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellant for contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act. The accused appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial court. The findings arrived at by the trial court are just and proper. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the trial court. On the basis of the conclusions of the Apex Court mentioned above and the findings mentioned, the arguments raised by the learned counsel accused appellant cannot be accepted. The trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant. The judgment of conviction and sentence is confirmed. 9. For the foregoing reasons the appeal being devoid of merit stands rejected. The appellant who is in jail shall serve out the remaining sentence as ordered by the trial court.Appeal dismissed. *******