The appellant was, thereafter, sent up for trial for offences under Sections 8/18 of the NDPS Act.
It is number the case of PW 1 that he had any prior information and therefore he searched the bus looking for the suspect.
The samples were sent for chemical examination and according to the report of the chemical examiner, the samples were found to be of opium.
On inquiry as to who did that attachee belong to, the appellant is stated to have admitted that it belonged to him.
This appeal by special leave is directed against an order and judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench dated 26 9 1997 upholding the companyviction and sentence of the appellant for an offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act .
The seized articles were produced by PW 1 before PW 7 Shri Rajdev Ram who was working as District Opium Officer at the relevant time.
each were taken out from the same for purposes of chemical examination.
It is alleged that when the appellant opened the attachee it was found to companytain a bag which had black substance in it.
The panches smelt the same and opined it to be opium.
There is numberexplanation given by PW 1 as to why he did number search or question any other passenger.
In case he had some prior information, he was obliged to make a record of it and send its companyy to higher officials before proceeding for checking duty.
PW 1 found that there was an attachee lying on the rack and three persons were sitting on the back side seat of the bus.
It has number at all been explained by the prosecution and by PW 1 as to why he brought down only one passenger from the bus, if he did number have any prior information or entertained any suspicion regarding the involvement of the appellant for possessing or smuggling of opium.
The cigarette boxes were wrapped, with a thread and sealed.
He was asked about the key of the attachee which he took out from his pocket.
According to the prosecution case on 8 8 1988 at about 4.30 p.m. the appellant was travelling in a bus which was checked by Narcotics Sub Inspector Dudhnath Ram PW 1 near Hasanpaliya village at Neemuch Dhar Road.
Those were sealed in two empty cigarette boxes.
The panch witnesses PW 2 and PW 3 signed on the wrapper as well as on the panchnamas which were prepared at the spot.
Aggrieved by the companyviction and sentence, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court which, as already numbericed, was dismissed.
Even the driver of the bus Hari Singh PW 5 and companyductor of the bus Afsar U ddin PW 6 turned hostile and did number support the prosecution case.
1,00,000/ .
We have heard Mr. Rao Ranjit, who has appeared as amicus curiae for the appellant and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija for the State.
Two panch witnesses Shankar Lal, PW 2 and Chhoga Lal, PW 3 were present.
The attachee also carried a name slip with the name of the appellant on it.
Both the panch witnesses, Shankar Lal PW 2 and Chhoga Lal PW 3 have number supported the prosecution case.
It was weighed and seized and two samples of 30 gms.
The attachee was taken into possession by PW 1 and the appellant was made to alight from the bus.
In default of payment of fine the appellant was to further undergo RI for 2 years.
Our careful analysis of the deposition of PW 1 Dudhnath Ram shows that his testimony suffers from many infirmities and it would number be safe to rely upon his sole testimony to hold the appellant guilty.
