JUDGMENT 1. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 105/09 registered at Police Station Harmada, District Jaipur, under Section 8/18 and 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') . 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 6.3.2009 at about 4.25 p.m., Chug Singh was posted as Station House Officer, (SHO for short) Police Station Bhatta Basti. On the basis of information secret information, Ganja was recovered from Suresh Ahuja. During interrogation, Suresh Ahuja stated that he had purchased the contraband from Motilal Jangid. He further stated that more contraband could be recovered from Motilal Jangid in case his house was raided. SHO Chug Singh sent information in writing to concerned Station House Officer . 3. On receipt of information from SHO Chug Singh, SHO Dharamveer Singh made an entry in the register. Information under Section 42 of the Act was sent to the higher officials. Narendra P.W.3 and Mohan Lal P.W.4 were joined as independent witnesses. Thereafter police party left for the house of the appellant at about 5.15 p.m. When they reached the house of the appellant they saw one person leaving the house in Maruti Car No. RJ 14-CI-7126. On seeing the police party, the driver of the vehicle tried to run away, after getting down from the car. The said person was apprehended and on enquiry he disclosed his name as Motilal Jangid. The said person was informed of his legal right available to him under Section 50 of the Act and was told that he could get the search effected from a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer as it was suspected that he was in possession of some contraband. Appellant reposed confidence in SHO Dharamveer Singh. From the bag carried by the appellant Charas was recovered. On weighment the said Charas weighed 4 kilo 100 grams. Out of the recovered Charas 100 grams was separated as sample and 100 grams was separated as control sample and were marked as A-1 and A-2 respectively. The said samples were made into separate sealed parcels. The residue Charas was also made into a sealed parcel. From another bag carried by the appellant 106 grams opium was recovered. Out of the said opium 25 grams was separated as sample and another 25 grams was separated as control sample. The said samples were made into separate sealed parcels. The residue Charas was also made into a sealed parcel. From another bag carried by the appellant 106 grams opium was recovered. Out of the said opium 25 grams was separated as sample and another 25 grams was separated as control sample. The said samples were made into the separate sealed parcels Mark B-1 and B-2 respectively. The residue opium was made into the separate sealed parcel. Case property was taken in possession. When the pocket of the black bag was checked, Rs. 59,500/- were recovered. When the Maruti Car was searched, 3 kilo 500 grams Ganja was found under the driver seat. Out of the said Ganja 100 grams was separated as sample and another 100 grams was separated as control sample and were marked as D-1 and D-1 respectively. The said samples were made into sealed parcels. The residue Ganja was also made into sealed parcel. Case property was taken into possession. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the accused. 5. During trial, prosecution examined 18 witnesses. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that he was innocent and has been falsely involved in the case by the police. He was not dealing in sale of contraband nor any recovery was effected from him He was carrying Rs. 70,000/- in his pocket and had to give the same to a lawyer. The said amount was to be deposited for change of ownership of the land in their favour. He had borrowed the said amount from his uncle Kanhaiyalal. Appellant examined 3 witnesses in his defence. 6. Trial court vide judgment/order dated 11.4.2011 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 8/20 and 8/18 of the Act. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and the learned State Counsel and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. 8. P.W.16 Chug Singh had deposed that on 6.3.2009 during interrogation accused Suresh Ahuja had stated that he had purchased the contraband from the appellant. The said accused had further stated that more contraband i.e. Ganja, Charas could be recovered from the appellant. P.W.16 Chug Singh informed P.W.18 SHO, Dharamveer Singh in this regard. 8. P.W.16 Chug Singh had deposed that on 6.3.2009 during interrogation accused Suresh Ahuja had stated that he had purchased the contraband from the appellant. The said accused had further stated that more contraband i.e. Ganja, Charas could be recovered from the appellant. P.W.16 Chug Singh informed P.W.18 SHO, Dharamveer Singh in this regard. After complying with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, SHO Dharamveer Singh along with other officials and independent witnesses reached the house of the appellant. Provisions of Section 50 of the Act were complied with by P.W.18. As per Ex.P.5 appellant had reposed confidence in P.W.18. Thereafter from the bag carried by the appellant Charas weighing 4 kilo 100 grams and opium weighing 106 grams were recovered. From the car of the appellant Ganja weighing 3 kilo 500 grams was recovered. Statement of P.W.18 with regard to recovery of the contraband from the appellant is corroborated by P.W.2 Devendra, P.W.5 Sadhu Ram, P.W.6 Mahendra Singh and P.W.7 Ram Singh. As per the said witnesses samples Marked A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2 and D-1, D-2 were separated from the recovered contraband and were made into sealed parcels. 9. Although, in the present case independent witnesses P.W.3 Narendra and P.W.4 Mohan Lal have not supported the prosecution story but the prosecution story with regard to recovery of the contraband from the appellant is duly established from the statements of the official witnesses. The official witnesses were acting in discharge of their official duties and had no reason or ill-will to falsely involve the appellant in this case. 10. P.W. 17 Raghuveer Singh deposed that on 9.3.2009 he was posted as Malkhana Incharge, Police Station Harmada. On that day three packets marked A-1, B-1 and D-1 duly sealed were handed over to Head Constable Rameshwar for depositing the same with the Forensic Science Laboratory and for obtaining the forwarding letter. The said official after doing the needful handed over the receipt to him on the same day. On 8.9.09, he had handed over 3 duly sealed parcels marked A-2, B-2 and D-2 to Constable Nand Kishore for depositing the same with the Forensic Science Laboratory. The said Constable after depositing the samples with the Forensic Science Laboratory handed over the receipt to him. On 11.9.2009, the said parcels were redeposited in the Malkhana as they could not be deposited with the Forensic Science Laboratory. The said Constable after depositing the samples with the Forensic Science Laboratory handed over the receipt to him. On 11.9.2009, the said parcels were redeposited in the Malkhana as they could not be deposited with the Forensic Science Laboratory. On 7.10.2009, the said samples were handed over to Constable Meena Ram for depositing the same with Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi. After depositing the said samples, Constable Meena Ram handed over the receipt to him on 11.10.2009. 11. P.W.12 Rameshwar Lal has corroborated the statement of P.W.17 with regard to handing over the samples to him on 9.3.2009 and the fact that he had deposited the samples with Forensic Science Laboratory and had handed over the receipt to P.W.17. 12. Ex.P.31 is the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. As per the said report samples marked A-1, B-1 and D-1 had been received in sealed condition. Packet marked A-1 was found to be of Charas. Packet marked B-1 was of opium poppy. Sample marked D-1 was of Ganja. Ex.P.32 is the report of Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi. As per the said report samples marked A-2 and B-2 were of Charas, whereas sample marked D-2 was of Ganja. 13. Appellant appeared in the witness box as D.W.1 and deposed as per the plea taken by him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 14. D.W.2 Vijay Kumar (grandson of deceased Kanhaiyalal) and D.W.3 Meera (wife of the appellant) corroborated the statement of the appellant. 15. From the statements of the official witnesses and the report of the Laboratory Ex.P.31 and Ex.P.32, it was duly established on record that the appellant was in possession of Charas and Ganja without any permit or licence. So far as the plea taken by the appellant to the effect that he had borrowed Rs. 70,000/- from his uncle Kanhaiyalal is concerned, the same was liable to be disbelieved as appellant had failed to examine the concerned lawyer to whom the payment was to be given, as a witness to corroborate his plea. It appears that the plea taken by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and while appearing in the witness box as D.W.1 was an after thought. 16. In the present case, the prosecution had been successful in establishing that the appellant was in possession of Charas and Ganja without any permit or licence. It appears that the plea taken by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and while appearing in the witness box as D.W.1 was an after thought. 16. In the present case, the prosecution had been successful in establishing that the appellant was in possession of Charas and Ganja without any permit or licence. The trial court had, thus, rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 8/20 and 8/18 of the Act. No interference is made out. 17. Dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******