Appreciation of evidence–Prosecution witnesses proved possession of seized narcotics–Its recovery during search of house was not denied by appellant–Chemical expert appeared in Court and produced his report–Appellant’s plea that he had no concern with seized narcotic without furnishing reasonable explanation for same–Nothing on record to indicate his false involvement in this case or mala fide on part of police officials to have deposed against him maliciously–Held: It cannot be believed that police officials would plant narcotics on appellant from their own source or. substitute him for real culprit–Held further: Appellant failed to discharge burden as per provisions contained in Section 29 of said Act