IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of compliance of provisions u/s 50 & 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the evidence of police officer can not be relied upon implicitly to base conviction.

JUDGMENT

I.G. Shah, J. - The accused who has been convicted of the offence punishable under section 20. (b) (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and is sentenced to R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default further R.I. for 2 years in Sessions Case No. 576/87 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Thane., has preferred this appeal.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:

Accused Usman is a resident of Bhiwandi. P.S.I. Jadhav, Head Constable Kasurde, Head Constable Pathan and Constable Gaikwad of Bhoiwada Police Station, Bhiwandi were attached to the Divisional Detection Branch, Bhiwandi in Septemher 1987. On 23.9.1987 they were on patrolling duty after about 5.00. p.m. and while they were patrolling and when they reached near a hotel by name Tohfa on Kalyan Road at about 6.45 p.m. an informant approached them and gave them information that the accused was selling charas tablets in front of Apsara Talkies and that he was sitting on a parapet wall of a well. The police, therefore, called two panchas and proceeded along with the panchas and the informant towards the reported scene of offence and the informant pointed out from a distance the accused who was sitting on a parapet wall of a well. The informant then went away. The police thereafter went near the accused and caught him and affected search of his person. In the search a plastic bag containing 69 tablets of charas is alleged to have been found in the pocket of the trouser of the accused. Police seized the said contraband articles and after completing the formalities of effecting panchanama of seizure of the said articles, took the accused and the contraband Articles seized from the accused to Bhiwandi Town Police Station and the same were then produced before the Head Constable Kadam who was the Police Station Officer. An offence under C.R. No. III-232-87 was registered and P.S.I. Dhonnar was entrusted with the investigation. On completion of investigation and receipt of the C.A. report in respect of the contraband articles alleged to have been seized from the accused, a charge sheet was filed against the accused.

3. The learned Sessions Judge before whom the accused was tried, framed charge in respect of the offence under section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D. P.S. Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence was of total denial.

4. On the strength of evidence led before the learned Sessions Judge, he found that the prosecution had established that the accused was found in possession of charas as claimed by the prosecution and, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated earlier. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant-accused has come in appeal to this Court.

5. On behalf of the appellant accused, it is contended that the evidence produced by the prosecution is not trustworthy and suffers from numher of infirmities and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was in error in holding that the prosecution has proved that the accused was found in possession of the contraband articles as claimed by the prosecution. It is also contended that the various provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act which are mandatory were not complied by the police while raiding the accused and, therefore, also the alleged seizure of contraband articles from the accused cannot be relied upon.

6. The prosecution in order to prove the case against the accused, examined P.W.1. Head Constable Kasurde, P.W. 2 Pujari, the panch witness, P.W. 3-Head Constable Pathan and P.W. 4 P.S. 1 Dhonnar. The learned Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of the said prosecution witnesses as reliable and relying on their evidence he found that the prosecution had established that the accused was in possession of the contraband articles.

7. On behalf of the accused, it is contended that the prosecution no doubt has examined panch witness Pujari. P.W. 2, but it is clear from his evidence th