S.G. Shah, J. - (1.)HEARD learned advocate Mr. Yogesh G Dev for the appellant and Ld. APP Mr. KL Pandya for the respondent - State.
(2.)BY impugned judgment and order dated 5/2/2008 rendered in Sessions Case No. 30/2007, Fast Track Court Judge cum Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act [for short 'the NDPS Act'], Porbandar, has convicted the appellant under section 20 [b] of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment [RI] for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo RI for one year. Such conviction is pursuant to the offence registered with Bagvadar Police Station as C.R. No. II 30/2007 wherein after investigation, charge -sheet was filed and appellant was tried in aforesaid Sessions Case.
The sum and substance of the prosecution case is to the effect that on 14/4/2007, P.S.I. Mr. Chavda of Bagvadar Police Station has received information that the present appellant is dealing with Charas in his house and, therefore, P.S.I. Mr. Chavda has conducted raid at the residence of the appellant, where he found 980 Grams of Charas having market price of Rs. 19,600/ -, for which he has drawn Panchnama, called for the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory [FSL] and on confirmation that the Muddamal recovered by him is contraband material and narcotic drug, namely Charas, he initiated inquiry and lodged FIR, which has resulted into conviction as recorded hereinabove.

(3.)THE sum and substance of the defense by the appellant, both before the trial Court and this Court, is to the effect that there is no exclusive possession of the house of the appellant so far as contraband material is concerned, there is no positive evidence regarding ownership of the house or at -least it was not owned by him and information regarding ownership was not proper since it was called after four days and there is no reference or disclosure of house number in such information. Even number of packets is uncertain i.e., one or two, conduct of the accused and contradiction by panch witness and non -examination of second panch witness raise doubt in the prosecution evidence so as to confirm the conviction.