The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to proper procedures for handling seized items and sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory in cases involving narcotic drugs.

GOPAL PRASAD, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the State.

2. Both these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment as they arise out of same judgment order of conviction and sentence, recorded by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, I, East Champaran at Motihari, in N.D.P.S. Case No. 101 of 2011.

3. The appellants have been convicted under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of rupees one lakh and for non-payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

4. The prosecution case, as alleged in the first information report by the informant, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Baleshwar Kisku, Officer-in-Charge of Raxaul Police Station that he got secret information on 05.05.2011 at 08.00 A.M. that some persons are proceeding on foots with gunny bags like material on the head containing ganja. On the said information, the informant proceeded with the police force on jeep and reached at Mobile Tower, ahead Manokamnama Mandir of Laxmipur village, on N.H. 28A, then, saw two persons fleeing away after seeing the police persons. The said persons were chased and caught by the police force and on checking the gunny bags it was found, from the possession of Heman Kumar Singh, three packets of ganja wrapped in plastic packets tied with rope containing 10 Kg, 7 Kg and 7 Kg respectively and from the possession of one Shanker Mandal, three packets containing 7 Kg, 8 Kg and 9 Kg of ganja, hence, from the possession of both the persons 24 Kg ganja in each possession were found, seizure list prepared and the same was handed over for further proceeding. On the basis of said written report by the informant Baleshwar Kisku, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, an endorsement was made by the Station House Officer, Raxaul Police Station, to register Raxaul P.S. Case No. 83, dated 05.05.2011, under Sections 20, 22, 24 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Dinesh Kumar Das was advised to investigate the case. On the said written report by the informant, first information report lodged and investigation proceeded. During the investigation, the investigating officer inspected the place of occurrence, recorded the description of the place of occurrence and it’s boundary, recorded the statement of the witnesses, sent the sample of the ganja to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna and after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet on which the cognizance taken and after framing of the charge, the trial Court proceeded.

5. During the trial five witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, and 4 are the police personnel. P.W. 1 is Baleshwar Kisku, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, P.W. 2 is Brahmdeo Yadav, a Constable and member of the raiding party, P.W. 3 is Upendra Singh, again a Constable and member of the raiding party, P.W. 4 is Lal Babu Singh, a Constable, who is also a member of the raiding party, and they have supported the prosecution case regarding the seizure that they were members of the raiding party and on the information proceeded and they have, at the place of occurrence, apprehended two persons with gunny bags and from the bags three packets of ganja were recovered from each and, thereafter, the seizure list prepared and the persons arrested were produced before the Officer-in-Charge. However, P.W. 5 is the investigating officer of the case and he has deposed that he conducted the investigation, recorded the statement of the witnesses and finally submitted the charge sheet. However, in his evidence he has stated that the seizure list was prepared with regard to the article, seized, and from the possession of one person in the gunny bags three packets recovered from each of them, hence, a total of six packets were recovered from both of the accused person