JUDGMENT - V.V. KAMAT, J.:---The order of conviction, firstly under section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and secondly under section 66(1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for 5 years on the first count, and rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month on the second count, imposed in Sessions Case No. 19 of 1991, by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, by the impugned judgment dated July 25, 1991, is impugned by the appellant in this appeal.

2. The appellant was found in possession of 2kgs. of Charas valued at Rs. 1,95,305/-. The appellant was an external student for the degree course of Engineering at Aurangabad.

3. There are cases in which the Police act on prior information. There are cases in which panchas are easily available and the search can be made or the articles can be seized in their presence. Equally well, there are cases in which due to the time or the place at which the search is made or for some other reasons panchas are not available and search can be made or the articles cannot be seized in their presence. If in a case, the Police do not avail themselves of the panchas or the panchas do not support the prosecution, having been won over by the accused, the Court will have to examine the evidence of the Police witnesses carefully, bearing in mind the fact that independent evidence is not available for the Court and if after exercising due care and caution, the Court comes to the conclusion that their evidence can be safely relied upon, the Court can proceed to act on the evidence of the Police witnesses. The Court has to weigh such evidence and has to reach a conclusion as to whether their evidence is reliable or not if such evidence is found to be reliable, there is no harm in accepting their evidence. The Court cannot proceed on the implicit faith in the Police witnesses, but the Court has to consider their evidence and scrutinise the evidence. There are cases which are to be termed as accidental detection of crimes.

4. Even the N.D.P.S. Act does not ignore these aspects. There are provisions contemplating the factual situation that on facts certain requirements, if cannot be followed without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, the investigating agency is not rendered helpless in the situation. The procedural safeguards provided in the N.D.P.S. Act have to be considered in their application with reference to the factual situation.

5. In approaching to consider the nature and consequences as a result of non-compliance of these safeguards, the Court will have to keep in mind that the N.D.P.S. Act was brought on the statute to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. The Act is brought on the statute book to implement the provisions of the international convention on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Those who deal in drugs in any manner will have to be looked at with reference to the consequences of consumption of drugs. Those who consume become their slaves and slowly pushed into grave of their own making. The trafficking in drugs is not only antinational, but an atrocity against the public health. Stringent provisions with procedural safeguards are available in the Act to ensure the fairness and consequent acceptance of the investigation by the Court. The Act contains several provisions requiring the method of investigation. There are provisions of submitting reports at several stages of investigation.

6. In considering the nature of these provisions as to whether they are mandatory or directory, it would not be sufficient to confine ourselves to the language of the section and the letter of the law. The approach must take

Click Here to Read the rest of this document