The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of complying with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, including search and seizure procedures, weighing of seized articles, and the jurisdiction of the trial court.

Akhilesh Chandra, J.

1. The sole appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 23(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "NDPS Act") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years and a fine of Rs. 1.50 lacs in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for ten months for the offence under Section 23(c) and rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.25 lacs in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight months for the offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. However, sentences are to run concurrently awarded in NDPS case No. 61 of 2003/17 of 2005 by Sri Binay Shankar Mishra,. Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, East Champaran, Motihari. By same judgment second accused Lal Babu Mian @ Md. Lal Babu, who was also facing trial for the same offences, was ordered to be acquitted.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the basis of an information at about six hours on 24th August, 2003 a team of Officers of Custom of local Custom Station, Raxaul, intercepted at Gamariya Chowk. Raxaul, a container bearing No. GSTU- 3445103 (Gen star) loaded on Ashok Leyland Truck bearing registration No. WB 15/5961 in standing position. The appellant was said standing beside the truck. In course of search, container was opened in presence of two independent witnesses and 33 bundles of Ganja wrapped in P.P. bags were recovered and it revealed from the alleged statement of the appellant that it was loaded at National Highway about half kilometer away from South of Gamariya Chowk, Raxaul by co-named accused and the truck was brought to the Chowk where it was intercepted and appellant was waiting for clearance of signal from said Lal Babu Mian. Container along with the driver and independent witnesses were brought to local custom station of Raxaul where further investigation/formalities held. The representative sample of such Ganja was drawn and rest of Ganja was weighed which was found 575 kgs. (in gross and moist condition). In course of further examination of the vehicle and the person some documents related to the vehicle were recovered whereas on personal search of the appellant only a sum of Rs. 4,000/- (Indian Currency) was recovered. During interrogation appellants statement was recorded under Section 67 of the Act wherein he said to have not only accepted the guilt but revealed information regarding co-accused, Lal Babu Mian, at whose instance Ganja was recovered, and was to deliver at Begusarai. In the meantime, it was intercepted. House of Lal Babu Mian was also searched consequently. Nothing was recovered. However, complaint against both were filed. Meanwhile, sample was examined at Government Opium and Alkaloid Works, Ghazipur (U.P.), by Chemical Examiner and was found to be Ganja.

3. During trial, prosecution has examined altogether twelve witnesses, namely, Shashank Bhushan, Ashwini Kumar Singh, Srikant Choudhary, Sant Kumar Gagrai, Jitendra Kumar Sinha, Ashok Kumar Choudhary, R.S. Sharma, Tara Prasad Chatterjee, Md. Ezaz Hussain, Sangita Devi, Krishna Ballabh Prasad and Md. Sadman, besides the following documents. Exhibits-1 to 1/1-Interrogatory statement of Kalim Ansari and Lal Babu Mian, Exhibits-2 to 2/1- two letters, Ex- hibit-3- panchanama, Exhibit-4 seizure list, Exhibit 4/1-seizure list, Exhibit-5, voluntary statement of Md. Kalim Ansari, Exhibit-5/1-voluntary statement of Md. Lal Babu @ Lalbabu Mian, Exhibit-6-attested compliant, Exhibit- 3/l-panchnama of Md. Lal Babu Mian, Exhibit-7-Court permission (order sheet), Exhibit-8-Destruction, Exhibit- 9- Chemical report."

4. There is no evidence in defence. However, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both the accused persons, including the appellant, denied their complicity and had stated abo