IMPORTANT POINTS
Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only in case of search of the person of the accused and not his vehicle etc.
Offences under NDPS Act attract severe punishment. Therefore conviction requires strict proof for proving search, seizure and recovery.

JUDGMENT

R. Banumathi, J.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 10.12.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 777-SB of 1996, whereby the High Court affirmed the conviction of the Appellant Under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') and also the sentence of imprisonment of ten years along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on the Appellant.

3. Briefly stated case of prosecution is that on 27.07.1994, the police officials during patrolling, when talking with one Manjeet Singh-PW 1 and Gamdur Singh-DW 2, saw the suspicious 'fitter-rehra' (a vehicle) driven by the Appellant. Police intercepted the vehicle and questioned the Appellant about his whereabouts, and found some dubious bags lying in the vehicle. Before searching the bags, police intimated to the Appellant that instead of being searched by police whether he wishes to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and the Appellant declined to be searched by them and a consent memo (Ext. PA) was drawn. Then, the police in the presence of independent witnesses, i.e. Manjeet Singh and Gamdur Singh, conducted the search and during the search, three bags containing commercial quantity of poppy husk (120 kgms.) were recovered from the Appellant's vehicle. Police seized the bags, took sample of 200 grams from each of the bag and sealed them separately, and then sealed the remaining quantity in separate parcels and deposited the same with MHC. The sealed samples were sent to Chemical Examiner, who vide his report (Ext. PK) found the samples to be 'Powdered Poppy Husk'. On completion of investigation, police laid the chargesheet against the Appellant Under Section 15 of NDPS Act.

4. Prosecution to prove their case examined as many as six witnesses. Out of two independent witnesses in the case, Manjeet Singh-PW 1 turned hostile and Gamdur Singh was won over by the defence and had been examined as defence witness DW 2. Defence examined one more witness, viz. Jaswant Singh-DW 1.

5. The Sessions Court, after considering the evidence held that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby convicted the Appellant Under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellant, being aggrieved, filed the appeal challenging the conviction and sentence of imprisonment before the High Court. The High Court held that the evidence of PW 6-Inspector Raghbir Singh and PW 2-H.C. Suraj Mal is unimpeachable and vide impugned judgment dated 10.12.2007 confirmed the conviction of the Appellant and dismissed the appeal.

6. Challenging his conviction, the Appellant has approached this Court with a contention that he has been falsely implicated in the case and that he was brought from his house and was put behind the bars. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the case of the prosecution is based solely on the testimony of official witnesses PW 2 and PW 6 and much weightage ought not to have been attached to their testimony, especially by discarding the testimony of both the defence witnesses. It was submitted that since both the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution story, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and this material aspect has been ignored by the courts below. Appellant also alleges that non-compliance of mandatory provisions Under Sections 50 and 52 of the NDPS Act vitiates the alleged recovery of contraband.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent-State has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has been duly complied with and the concurrent findings of the courts below recording the verdict of conviction cannot be interfered with.

8. Dur