(1.) This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dateessions Judge, (Ayodhya Prakaran) Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 1994. The appellant has assailed his conviction under Section 8C/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and imposition of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac only) along with default stipulation by imposing rigorous imprisonment for three years.
(2.) It is pleaded in the grounds of appeal that investigation of this case was tainted. Recovery of 200 mg brown sugar is totally false and concocted. According to chemical analysis report alleged recovered narcotics is found as Heroin. It is also pleaded that no independent witness is supporting the allegations of recovery memo. The provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with. The source of information was not disclosed in the recovery memo. The sentence is excessive. Therefore, judgment and order of trial court is unjust, illegal and improper. On these grounds, impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.
(3.) Case called out in the revised list. None appeared on behalf of appellant to argue this appeal. Learned A.G.A. present for the State.