1 CRA No.421 of 2001 2025:CGHC:55404 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 421 of 2001 Vijai Shankar Singh son of Ram Pravesh Singh aged About 40 Years R/o Narkharki, PS Baghmar, District-Dhanbad (Bihar) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through: P.S. Sheorinarayan Distt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board 13-11-2025 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09/04/2001 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Bilaspur (C.G.) in SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.11.17 17:31:07 +0530 2 CRA No.421 of 2001 Special Case No. 33/2000 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 20(B)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘the NDPS act’) and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one year and three months. 2. (a) Case of the prosecution in brief is that PW/4 Shivshankar Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) posted at Navagarh police post, received an information from an informant at approximately 23:50 in the night of 29.05.2000 to the effect that a man, fair skinned man in a white dress, had arrived to sell Ganja and was sleeping with his briefcase in front of house of Ramswaroop Tiwari. He recorded the information provided by the informant in a panchnama and a copy of which sent to the Sub-Divisional Officer Police (SDOP), Janjgir. He also informed the SDOP that he was leaving with his staff and requested him to arrive at the spot. Thereafter he alongwith Head Constable Jhularam, Constable Ramakrishna, and Constable Balkrishna, reached the village Semra, he awakened the Kotwar of the village Semra and summoned Dinanath and Julab Khan and informed them regarding the information given by the informant. He then went to Ramswaroop Tiwari's house, where the accused was sleeping in front of his door. He asked the accused his name, and then the accused told him that he had brought Ganja for sale. He then gave the accused written consent to search his clothes. Thereafter, he searched the accused's clothes, but found nothing. The Cot where the accused was lying, a suitcase was there. PW/4 Shiv Shankar Singh made the suitcase opened in front of witnesses, and three packets of Ganja were found 3 CRA No.421 of 2001 inside. Shiv Shankar Singh himself and the witnesses identified the Ganja by smelling and tasting it. Thereafter, he had made Kotwar Firandas to bring a scale and weighed the Ganja. Out of the three packets found in the suitcase, one packet weighed 5 kg 950 grams, the second packet weighed 3 kg 850 grams, and the third packet weighed 2 kg 550 grams. Thereafter PW/4 separated three sample packets weighing 50 grams of Ganja from each packet and sealed them. He also sealed the remaining Ganja. He then seized the sealed packets along with the suitcase and other articles, which the accused was having, were also seized, then arrested the accused, brought him to Shivarinarayan police station, and reported to Station House Officer D.K. Netam. After investigation, the case against the accused was presented to the learned trial Court. (b) During investigation, the contraband Ganja was sampled, inventory proceedings were prepared and photographed, and the samples were sent to FSL, which confirmed the substance to be ganja. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused and Charge under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty. His statement under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, wherein he denied the allegations but did not adduce any defence evidence. (c) In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4 CRA No.421 of 2001 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which cannot form the basis for convicting the appellant for the alleged offence. The mandatory provisions contained under Sections 42, 50, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. Furthermore, there is a complete non-compliance with Standing Order No. 1/89 issued by the Central Government regarding the procedure for drawing samples, and in the absence of adherence to such procedure by the Investigating Officer, the entire proceedings stand vitiated. To buttress his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Surepally Srinivas v The State of Andhra Pradesh (now State of Telangana) Cr.A.No.1474 of 2025 decided on 25-3-2025. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The recovery of 12.350 kilograms of ganja, packed in 3 packets from the possession of the appellant, was effected in the presence of independent witnesses, after duly apprising the accused of his rights and obtaining his consent. The entire search and seizure was conducted strictly in accordance with law; a detailed seizure memo was prepared, samples were drawn, sealed, and subsequently forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, where they tested positive for Ganja. It is urged that the alleged omissions or contradictions are trivial in nature and do not in any way affect the core of the prosecution case. It is highly improbable that the police would falsely implicate the appellant with such an 5 CRA No.421 of 2001 enormous commercial quantity of contraband. The chain of custody was meticulously maintained, and substantial compliance was made with all mandatory provisions under Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The testimony of official witnesses is cogent, trustworthy, and corroborated by independent witnesses, documentary records, and the FSL report. The trial Court, therefore, rightly held that the appellant was in conscious possession of the contraband. 5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully scrutinized the record. 6. It has been held by the Supreme Court in many judicial precedents that if the evidence of police witnesses is worthy of belief then the accused can be convicted on the basis of their reliable evidence also. Similarly, the judicial precedent Nathusingh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2783, the Supreme Court has opined that there is no law that the statement of a police office or excise officer cannot be accepted in the absence of support. If the police officer’s single evidence is of such a quality that it cannot disbelieved, then on the basis of his sole evidence, a conclusion can be drawn about the recovery of something (narcotic substance). In the context of the opinion expressed in the above judicial precedents, it is now to be considered whether as per the evidence in the case, the Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation by following the mandatory and directive provisions of the NDPS Act which is supported by other evidence in the case. 6 CRA No.421 of 2001 7. PW/4 – Shivshankar Singh, Investigating Officer of the present case stated in his statement that he has been posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector, Outpost Incharge, Navagarh, from 02.12.1999 till date. He stated that on 29.05.2000, he received information from an informant that a fat and fair- skinned man wearing khaki coloured dress was staying at Ramswaroop Tiwari's place in Semra, who was there to sell ganja. After receiving the information, he prepared the informant's panchnama in front of witnesses, and sent information to SDOP Janjgir to leave for verification of the information. He along with Head Constable Jhularam, Constable Ramkrishna and Balkrishna, reached the village Semra. After reaching the spot, they picked up village Kotwar Firandas and through him called Sarpanch's husband Dinanath and Panch Julab Khan and told them that we have received information from a source that a Bihari man is staying at Ramtvaswa Tiwari's place and has brought Ganja, let us go and verify it. Thereafter they went to Ramswaroop Tiwari's house, a person was lying on the cot in his house, named Vijay Shankar. When he asked him that he have received information from an informer that you have brought Ganja for sale, then he said that he has brought Ganja for sale. On this he gave him a written notice for body search in front of witnesses. The accused gave his consent for body search in written. Thereafter he searched the accused in front of witnesses and nothing was found on the search. A suitcase was kept on the same cot on which the accused was lying. Vijayshankar/ the accused told that ganja was kept in the same bag. He got the suitcase opened in front of witnesses and found packets of ganja in it. He identified the ganja by smelling and tasting it. He send village Kotwar for 7 CRA No.421 of 2001 bringing a weighing scale and weighed the ganja. He weighed a total of 12 kg 350 grams of ganja in front of witnesses and prepared a weighing panchnama. Thereafter, he took out samples of ganja from each of the three packets, prepared packets, sealed them in front of witnesses, and sealed the remaining ganja separately and also seized the suitcase containing the ganja. In his cross-examination, he stated that he received the information at 11:50 PM. Semra is situated at the distance of 8 kilometers from the checkpoint. He left for Semra at 12:30 in the night. The informant did not accompany him. He went to Semra bus stand. The Kotwar had brought both witnesses with him. They reached the spot where the accused was sleeping soundly. He woke him up. On waking him up, the accused himself pointed out his suitcase. The accused was sleeping on a cot 2-4 feet from the door of Ramswaroop's house. The ganja was contained in three packets. A seizure was made of the ganja. Thereafter, a seizure was made of the contents of the bag. The ganja was wrapped in newsprint, tied with thread, and sealed. He denied the fact that Dinanath and Julab Khan were summoned to the police station the next day and documents were prepared and their statements were taken. He did not record the statements of either witness. All the paperwork related to accused was done in front of Ramswaroop. He denied the fact that he used to harass Ramswaroop and hence when Vijayshankar refused, he was falsely implicated. He denied the fact that he has falsely implicated Vijayshankar. 8. Section 43 of the NDPS Act provides the powers of seizure and arrest in public place which reads as under: 8 CRA No.421 of 2001 43. Power of seizure and arrest in public place- Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 may:- (a) seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under this Act has been committed, and, along with such drug or substance, any animal or conveyance or article liable to confiscation under this Act, any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under this Act or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; (b) detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under this Act, and if such person has any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in his possession and such possession appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him and any other person in his company. Explanation- For the purposes of this section, the expression public place" includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public.] 9. The facts of the case as well as evidence available in the case makes it clear that the accused was searched and a suitcase was found in his possession 9 CRA No.421 of 2001 and it was found contained with cannabis (Ganja). Admittedly it was being checked on the public place and the said cannabis (Ganja) was seized /recovered in a suitcase which was being carrying by the accused, who was sleeping in front of the house of Ramswaroop. Therefore, the issue of non- compliance of Section 42 is not applicable in the present case and the police authority have acted under Section 43 of the NDPS Act. Section 43 of the NDPS Act, when the place of occurrence was a public road and accessibility to the public and fell within the ambit of the public place. In view of the provisions of explanation to Section 43, the Section 42 of the NDPS had no application. 10. The contraband were recovered and seized while in a suitcase. As the contraband were recovered and seized during transit, as contemplated in Section 43(a) i.e. "Seize in any public place or in transit", this Court is of the considered opinion that Section 43 of the NDPS Act is applicable and as such, recording for reason for belief and for taking down of information received with regard to the Commission of offence before conducting search and seizure, is not required to be complied with under Section 43 of NDPS Act. 11. In the matter of Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan vs. State of Gujarat and Another dated 30.04.2024 reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 680 has held in para 18 as under: "18. Section 42 of the NDPS Act deals with search and seizure from a building, conveyance or enclosed place. When the search and seizure is effected from a public 10 CRA No.421 of 2001 place, the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act would apply and hence, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that non-compliance of the requirement of Section 42(2) vitiates the search and seizure. Hence, the said contention is noted to be rejected." 12. In the matter of State of Haryana vs. Jarnail Singh and Others reported in 2004 (5) SCC 188 in Para 9 and 10 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "9. Sections 42 and 43, therefore, contemplate two different situations. Section 42 contemplates entry into and search of any building, conveyance or enclosed place, while Section 43 contemplates a seizure made in any public place or in transit. If seizure is made under Section 42 between sunset and sunrise, the requirement of the proviso thereto has to be complied with. There is no such proviso in Section 43 of the Act and, therefore, it is obvious that if a public conveyance is searched in a public place, the officer making the search is not required to record his satisfaction as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act for searching the vehicle between sunset and the sunrise. 10. In the instant case there is no dispute that the tanker was moving on the public highway when it was stopped and searched. Section 43 therefore clearly applied to the facts of this case. Such being the factual position there was no requirement of the officer conducting the search to record the grounds of his belief as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42. Moreover it cannot be lost sight of that the Superintendent of Police was also a member of the searching party. It has been held by this Court in M. 11 CRA No.421 of 2001 Prabhulal vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence : (2003) 8 SCC 449 that where a search is conducted by a gazetted officer himself acting under Section 41 of the NDPS Act, it was not necessary to comply with the requirement of Section 42. For this reason also, in the facts of this case, it was not necessary to comply with the requirement of the proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act." 13. In the matter of Kallu Khan vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2021 (19) SCC 197 in Para 12, 13 and 16 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: 12. After hearing and on perusal of record and the evidence brought, it is apparent that on apprehending the accused, while making search of the motor cycle, 900 gm of smack was seized to which seizure and sample memos were prepared, as proved by the departmental witnesses. In the facts of the case at hand, where the search and seizure was made from the vehicle used, by way of chance recovery from public road, the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act would apply. In this regard, the guidance may be taken from the judgments of this Court in S. K. Raju (supra) and S.K. Sakkar (supra). However, the recovery made by Pranveer Singh (PW6) cannot be doubted in the facts of this case. 13. Now reverting to the contention that the motor cycle seized in commission of offence does not belong to accused, however seizure of the contraband from the motor cycle cannot be connected to prove the guilt of accused. The Trial Court on appraisal of the testimony of witnesses, Constable Preetam Singh (PW1), Constable 12 CRA No.421 of 2001 Sardar Singh (PW2), S.I. Pranveer Singh (PW6) and ConstableRajendra Prasad (PW8), who were members of the patrolling team and the witnesses of the seizure, proved beyond reasonable doubt, when they were on patrolling, the appellant came driving the seized vehicle from opposite side. On seeing the police vehicle, he had taken back the motor cycle which he was riding. However, the police team apprehended and intercepted the accused and made the search of vehicle, in which the seized contraband smack was found beneath the seat of the vehicle. However, while making search at public place, the contraband was seized from the motor cycle driven by the accused. Thus, recovery of the contraband from the motor cycle of the appellant was a chance recovery on a public road. As per Section 43 of NDPS Act, any officer of any of the departments, specified in Section 42, is having power of seizure and arrest of the accused from a public place, or in transit of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance. The said officer may detain in search any person whom he has reason to believe that he has committed an offence punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act, in case the possession of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance appears to be unlawful. Learned senior counsel representing the appellant is unable to show any deficiency in following the procedure or perversity to the findings recorded by the Trial Court, affirmed by the High Court. The seizure of the motor cycle from him is proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the question of ownership of vehicle is not relevant. In the similar set of facts, in the case of Rizwan Khan (supra), this Court observed the ownership of the vehicle is immaterial. Therefore, the argument as advanced by learned senior 13 CRA No.421 of 2001 counsel is of no substance and meritless. 14. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that Section 50 of NDPS Act has also not been complied with as the right to the appellant about his search has not been informed by the police authority as provided under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The provisions of Section 50 is applicable to the present search of the accused whereas in the present case the cannabis (Ganja) was recovered from the suitcase carrying by the accused which cannot said to be his personal search. The search of a suitcase does not comes under the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and search of a person is distinguished from search of any suitcase etc. 15. In the matter of State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh reported in 1999 (6) SCC 172 in Para 12 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "12. 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." 16. In the matter of Kulwinder Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (6) SCC 674 in Para 18 and 21 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: 14 CRA No.421 of 2001 18. In Dharampal Singh v. State of Punjab, it has been ruled that the expression “possession” is not capable of precise and complete logical definition of universal application in the context of all the statutes. Recently, in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan11, after referring to certain authorities, this Court has held as follows:- “21. From the aforesaid exposition of law it is quite vivid that the term “possession” for the purpose of Section 18 of the NDPS Act could mean physical possession with animus, custody or dominion over the prohibited substance with animus or even exercise of dominion and control as a result of concealment. The animus and the mental intent which is the primary and significant element to show and establish possession. Further, personal knowledge as to the existence of the “chattel” i.e. the illegal substance at a particular location or site, at a relevant time and the intention based upon the knowledge, would constitute the unique relationship and manifest possession. In such a situation, presence and existence of possession could be justified, for the intention is to exercise right over the substance or the chattel and to act as the owner to the exclusion of others. 22. In the case at hand, the appellant, we hold, had the requisite degree of control when, even if the said narcotic substance was not within his physical control at that moment. To give an example, a person can conceal prohibited narcotic substance in a property and move out thereafter. The said person because of necessary animus would be in 15 CRA No.421 of 2001 possession of the said substance even if he is not, at the moment, in physical control. The situation cannot be viewed differently when a person conceals and hides the prohibited narcotic substance in a public space. In the second category of cases, the person would be in possession because he has the necessary animus and the intention to retain control and dominion." 21. In State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar, it has been held that: “10. We are not concerned here with the wide definition of the word “person”, which in the legal world includes corporations, associations or body of individuals as factually in these type of cases search of their premises can be done and not of their person. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the context in which it has been used in the section it naturally means a human being or a living individual unit and not an artificial person. The word has to be understood in a broad common- sense manner and, therefore, not a naked or nude body of a human being but the manner in which a normal human being will move about in a civilised society. Therefore, the most appropriate meaning of the word “person” appears to be — “the body of a human being as presented to public view usually with its appropriate coverings and clothing”. In a civilised society appropriate coverings and clothings are considered absolutely essential and no sane human being comes in the gaze of others without appropriate coverings and clothings. The appropriate coverings will include footwear also as 16 CRA No.421 of 2001 normally it is considered an essential article to be worn while moving outside one’s home. Such appropriate coverings or clothings or footwear, after being worn, move along with the human body without any appreciable or extra effort. Once worn, they would not normally get detached from the body of the human being unless some specific effort in that direction is made. For interpreting the provision, rare cases of some religious monks and sages, who, according to the tenets of their religious belief do not cover their body with clothings, are not to be taken notice of. Therefore, the work 'person' would mean a human being with appropriate coverings and clothings and also footwear. 11. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human being. They are given a separate name and are identifiable as such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the body of a human being. Depending upon the physical capacity of a person, he may carry any number of items like a bag, a briefcase, a suitcase, a tin box, a thaila, a jhola, a gathri, a holdall, a carton, etc. of varying size, dimension or weight. However, while carrying or moving along with them, some extra effort or energy would be required. They would have to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder or back or placed on the head. In common parlance it would be said that a person is carrying a particular article, specifying the manner in which it was carried like hand, shoulder, back or head, etc. 17 CRA No.421 of 2001 Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word “person” occurring in Section 50 of the Act." 17. Furthermore, PW-2 Dinanath deposed that he had gone to the house of Ramswaroop at night along with the Kotwar and Police personnel, where he found the accused sleeping on a cot. He stated that although he knew Ramswaroop, he saw the accused for the first time on that occasion. He further stated that a grey colour suitcase was seized from the possession of the accused, and upon its search, ganja was recovered. On weighing, the ganja was found to be about 12.200 kg. He also stated that some additional articles were seized from the courtyard of Ramswaroop. PW-2 confirmed that he had signed the seizure documents. 18. PW-3 Julab Khan deposed that he was called by the Kotwar to Salkhan Chowk and thereafter, along with the Kotwar and police personnel, he went towards the house of Ramswaroop. He stated that earlier he had not been informed about the purpose of their visit or where they were going. Upon reaching the house of Ramswaroop, he saw the accused sleeping on a cot. The accused was then awakened, and a suitcase was seized from his possession. On searching the suitcase, a green, solid substance was found, and the Sub- Inspector informed him that the substance was ganja. He further stated that the ganja was weighed in his presence and it was approximately 11 kg. He also clarified that he did not go to the courtyard of Ramswaroop’s house. PW-3 confirmed that he signed the seizure documents along with PW-2 at the house of Ramswaroop at night. 18 CRA No.421 of 2001 19. Further, Ramkrishna (PW-12) and Head Constable Jhularam (PW-13) fully supported the prosecution case. Their testimonies corroborated the sequence of events leading to the search and seizure, as well as the manner in which the contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused. Both witnesses affirmed the procedural steps undertaken during the operation, thereby reinforcing the prosecution’s version of the incident. During their examination-in-chief, PW-12 and PW-13 stated that they, along with Assistant Sub-Inspector Shivshankar Singh (PW-4), proceeded to village Semra on the night of 30.05.2000. PW-12 deposed that they reached near the canal of village Semra at about midnight, where, through the Kotwar, the local Sarpanch and Julab Khan were called. Thereafter, they all moved towards the house of Ramswaroop. He further stated that the Sarpanch and Panch had not arrived by the time they reached the house. PW-12 deposed that upon reaching the house, they found the accused lying on a cot. During interrogation, the accused admitted that he had ganja in his possession. PW-12 further stated that upon asking for consent to search the accused, he agreed. A suitcase kept beneath the cot was shown by the accused, and upon opening it, ganja was found in three packets. Thereafter, the Kotwar was sent to bring a weighing scale. The Sub- Inspector weighed the ganja on the Kotwar’s scale, which measured approximately 11.500 kg. PW-12 also stated that the contraband was sealed on the spot, and after completion of the proceedings, the accused Vijayshankar and Ramswaroop were taken to the outpost Navagarh. 20. In the present case the entire search and seizure proceedings have found genuine and the correct procedure have been drawn by the police personnel. 19 CRA No.421 of 2001 According to the independent witnesses, the seizure of cannabis (Ganja) and its weight and sampling were proved and nothing adverse could be found to disbelieve their evidence which further proves that the appellant was found in possession of such a huge quantity of cannabis (Ganja) in his suitcase. The appellant did not able to impute any palpable evidence to make good his case that there has been non-compliance of any mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. 21. There is no material available on record so as to arrive at finding that the accused person has been falsely implicated in this case. Section 20 of the NDPS Act provides that whichever in contravention of any provisions of this Act or any rule made therein possess cannabis (Ganja) shall be punished in accordance with the said provisions. Section 20 (b) uses the "possess". In the present case the appellant was found in possession of 12.350 kg of cannabis (Ganja) in his suitcase which he was carrying with him at the relevant time. The judgment passed by learned trial Court is quite detailed judgment which has dealt with every aspect of the matter and the analysis made therein clearly proves the appellant has committed the offence in question and was selling cannabis (Ganja) weighing 12.350 kg. He could not offer any explanation as to how that immense quantity of cannabis (Ganja) came to be found in his suitcase. 22. The FSL report Ex.-P/19 further proves that the sample packets of cannabis (Ganja) which were drawn from the total quantity of cannabis (Ganja) were found to be contained with cannabis (Ganja) contents and further corroborates the allegation against the appellant. 20 CRA No.421 of 2001 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Surepally Srinivas (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the said case the contraband was kept in a separate room situated in the office of Investing Officer for a period of fifteen days and as such the same could give rise to an an allegation that the seized contraband was itself substituted and some other items planted to falsely implicate the accused whereas in the case at hand, the seized contraband was kept in a suitcase carrying by the appellant and even weight of each packet has been recorded in the Panchnama. The said fact is evident from para 6 of the evidence of PW-4, Shivshankar Singh, ASI. Thus, it is quite vivid that in this case proper procedure has been followed, as has been provided under the NDPS Act. 24. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the judgment passed by learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record as well as law laid down by the Supreme Court and the same needs no interference as such the judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded to the appellant is hereby affirmed. 25. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. Although the appellant is reported to be on bail, he has not been appearing before this Court despite issuance of several bailable and non-bailable 21 CRA No.421 of 2001 warrants. Accordingly, the appellant shall be taken into custody to serve the remaining period of the jail sentence as awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 26. The appellant is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 27. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar