The judgment established the interpretation of the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the significance of substantial compliance and minor differences in weight in vitiating the trial.

ORDER

1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT DATED 9-3-2001. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

ON 21-5-1993 SECRET INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF SP/CBVSIU, XI, NEW DELHI THAT THE RESPONDENT IN CONNIVANCE WITH OTHERS WAS INDULGING IN THE ACTIVITY OF SUPPLYING AND SELLING HUGE QUANTITY OF CHARAS TO A NUMBER OF PERSONS IN NAJAFGARH AREA AND IN HARYANA ALSO. THE INFORMATION WAS THAT HE WAS LIKELY TO SUPPLY A HUGE QUANTITY TO AN UNKNOWN PARTY ON 22-5-1993 AT 3 P.M. NEAR DHANSA BUS-STAND, NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI. THIS INFORMATION WAS REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF CBI AND THE CASE WAS ENTRUSTED TO THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MEHAR SINGH.

2. ON 22-5-1993 THE SECRET INFORMER AGAIN CONTACTED THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND CONFIRMED THE INFORMATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MEHAR SINGH DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH THE SP AND A RAIDING PARTY WAS ORGANISED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF MEHAR SINGH WHICH CONSISTED OF THE FOLLOWING PERSONS:

MR. DILBAGH SINGH, MR. PHOOL KUMAR, MR. JAGDISH CHAND, MR. JAIBIR SINGH,

MR. RAJINDER SAXENA, AND MR. AJAY SINGH.

3. THE RAIDING PARTY REACHED THE SPOT AT ABOUT 2 P.M. AFTER PARKING THE VEHICLE AT A SAFE PLACE, A NAKABANDI WAS ORGANISED. AT 2.45 P.M. THE RESPONDENT ARRIVED CARRYING A WHITE CLOTH BAG IN HIS HANDS. THE SECRET INFORMER POINTED OUT THE RESPONDENT TO THE RAIDING PARTY AND LEFT. THEREAFTER, THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MEHAR SINGH APPROACHED THE RESPONDENT, DISCLOSED HIS IDENTITY AND IDENTITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE RAIDING PARTY AND TOLD HIM THAT AS PER THEIR SECRET INFORMATION HE WAS CARRYING NARCOTIC SUBSTANCES. ON THIS THE RESPONDENT THREW DOWN THE BAG AND ATTEMPTED TO RUN AWAY BUT HE WAS APPREHENDED BY THE RAIDING PARTY. AFTER HE WAS APPREHENDED, THE RESPONDENT WAS INFORMED, NOT JUST BY THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BUT ALSO BY PW 1 RAJINDER SAXENA (WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT WITNESS) THAT IF HE SO DESIRED, HE COULD BE SEARCHED IN THE PRESENCE OF A GAZETTED OFFICER OR BE TAKEN TO THE NEAREST MAGISTRATE. HE WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT BOTH PWS 1 AND 3 WERE GAZETTED OFFICERS. THE RESPONDENT DECLINED TO BE SEARCHED IN THE PRESENCE OF A MAGISTRATE AND/OR A GAZETTED OFFICER AND AGREED TO BE SEARCHED BY THE GAZETTED OFFICERS PRESENT. BEFORE THE RESPONDENT WAS SEARCHED HE WAS ALSO TOLD THAT HE COULD SEARCH THE DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE RAIDING PARTY, IF HE SO DESIRED. HE AGAIN DECLINED THE OFFER. ON OPENING THE BAG WHICH THE RESPONDENT HAD THROWN AWAY, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE BAG CONTAINED TWENTY SLABS OF DARK BROWNISH-COLOURED SUBSTANCE. CONTENTS OF EACH OF THE SLABS WERE TESTED WITH THE HELP OF FIELD TESTING KIT AND GAVE POSITIVE RESULTS FOR CHARAS. ON BEING WEIGHED IT WAS FOUND THAT EACH SLAB WAS APPROXIMATELY 250 GRAMS AND THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF THE CHARAS CAME TO BE 5 KG. THEREAFTER, TWO REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES, EACH WEIGHING "ABOUT 50 GRAMS" WERE DRAWN OUT IN TWO SMALL POLYTHENE BAGS. THESE BAGS WERE SEALED WITH CBI SEAL BEARING IMPRESSION JS/4 AND WERE MARKED A-1 AND A-2. THE INDEPENDENT WITNESSES, DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND THE OTHER PERSONS SIGNED THEREON. THE REMAINING CHARAS WAS KEPT BACK IN THE WHITE CLOTH BAG WHICH WAS ALSO SEALED AND MARKED AS A.

4. THE TRIAL COURT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE AND THE RELEVANT MATERIAL, CONVICTED THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 20(B)(II) OF THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 AND SENTENCED HIM TO 10 YEARS RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT AND A FINE OF RS 1 LAKH.

5. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE HIGH COURT ON TWO GROUNDS VIZ. (A) THAT THERE IS NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 50 OF THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, AND (B) THAT THE SAMPLES TAKEN WERE WEIGHING 50 GRAMS, BUT ACCORDING TO CFSL WHAT WAS RECEIVED BY THEM WAS 55.5 GRAMS. IT WAS HELD THAT BECAUSE OF THIS IT COULD NOT BE SAID WITH CERTAINTY THAT IT WAS THE SAME SAMPLE, WHICH HAD BEEN ALLEGED TO BE TAKEN, WHICH HAD BEEN SENT TO CFSL.