Proper custody and documentation of seized articles are essential for prosecution under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, as emphasized by Section 55 of the Act.

ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The State of Gujarat is in appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court. Six persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 22 read with Section 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act"). Out of the six persons, four were acquitted by the trial court and two were convicted who filed an appeal before the High Court. In support of the appeal primarily two pleas were raised; first related to alleged non-compliance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Act and the second related to the question of custody of the alleged contraband articles after seizure. On both grounds the High Court found against the prosecution.

3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant State submitted that the material on record justifies the conviction which was made by the trial court. The Police Inspector who had made the seizure had deposed that he had deposited the articles at the police station. Therefore, on the basis of the report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory on 1-5-1991, the conviction should have been maintained.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-accused supported the judgment of the High Court.

5. We find that there was really no material brought on record to show as to where the seized articles were kept. The High Court after analysing the evidence on record came to hold that the identity of the articles sent for analysis was not established and it was not established that the articles seized were in fact sent for chemical examination. In view of the judgment of this Court in Valsala v. State of Kerala1 the view of the High Court is in order. It is not the delay in sending the samples which is material. What has to be established is that the seized articles were in proper custody, in proper form and the samples sent to the Chemical Analyst related to the seized articles.

6. Further, there was nothing brought on record to show as to under whose directions the samples were sent for chemical examination. The High Court relied on Section 55 of the Act to hold that the absence of such information also vitiates the proceedings. Section 55 of the Act provides that the officer in charge of the police station has to take charge of and keep in safe custody the seized articles pending orders of the Magistrate. Since there is no material to show that there was any order of the Magistrate as to where the seized articles were to be kept, and there was no material to show that there was safe custody as is required under Section 55 of the Act, the view of the High Court is in order. Judgment of the High Court does not warrant any interference in our hands and the appeal is dismissed.

(2003) 12 SCC 339

V.N. KHARE, C.J. AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ

EASTERN COALFIELDS Appellant;

Versus

JOSCON -Respondent.

Civil Appeal No. 13386 of 1996

Decided on July 31, 2003

Case Referred

1. (2003) 6 see 595: (2003) 3 Scale 611, Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani

ORDER

1.None appears on behalf of the respondent.

2. The appellant is a public sector undertaking incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It appears that the appellant herein issued several work orders to the respondent herein for construction of 32 units NHS (D/S) quarters at Rajpura Colliery, Kapasara, Bihar (now in the State of Jharkhand).

As a result thereof, an agreement was executed between the appellant and the respondent. It appears that certain disputes arose as regards the payment for the work done by the respondent. Under such circumstances, the respondent by letter dated 1-6-1990 sought reference of dispute to the arbitrator. On 5-91990, the Chief Engineer rejected the request of the respondent for arbitration. Thereafter, the respondent in September 1990 filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). A learned