Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act can lead to the annulment of the judgment of conviction and sentence, as highlighted by relevant case law.

ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.

Cr. Appeal (DB) No.521 of 2014 wherein Pratibha Devi is the appellant and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 721 of 2014 wherein Md. Anamul Haque is the appellant, commonly originate against the judgment of conviction dated 11.6.2014, whereby and whereunder both the appellants have been found guilty for an offence punishable under sections 20(b) & (c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and further appellant Md. Anamul Haque has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs. 1 lac, in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months additionally, while the appellant Pratibha Devi has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.1.5 lacs, in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year additionally, with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently along with setting of the period of the detention since before in terms of section 428 of the Cr.P.C. vide order dated 16.6.2014 relating to Sonepur (Hajipur) Police Station Case No. 1 of 2010 by the Special judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Vaishali at Hajipur, on account thereof, have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

2. Ramesh Singh (PW 3), S.I. of the R.P.F., on getting confidential information with regard to transportation of narcotic drugs illegally, he along with Akhilesh Singh (PW 2), Santosh Kumar Singh (PW 7), constable Ranjit Kumar Singh (PW 8), after informing the inspector R.P.F. Hajipur, Akhilesh Singh (PW 2) came at Hajipur Railway station where he met with informer who pointed out one lady and two gents who, at that very moment, were sitting at Platform no.1 beneath a Peepal tree. Accordingly, they began to keep watch over them. As soon as the lady got up and lifted a bag along with her associates, they were apprehended and queried. During course thereof, they did not disclose correctly and on account thereof, her bag was checked wherefrom 10 packets Charas, each weighing 500 grams, approximately 5 kilograms was seized. They were not at all possessing valid ticket nor could they show any valid document relating to their stay at that very place.

3. Accordingly, PW 3 recorded his statement to this effect, addressed to Akhilesh Singh (PW 2) and tendered the seized articles, the three aforesaid accused, whereupon PW 2 endorsed and further forwarded the same to the local GRP whereupon, Sonepur (Hajipur) Rail Police Station Case No. 1 of 2010 was registered under sections 20/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Thereafter, as is evident the investigation was taken up and after concluding the same, charge sheet was submitted whereupon, after taking cognizance, the record was transferred to the court of learned Special judge. The trial court ultimately identifying these two appellants guilty for the offences as indicated above, acquitted co-accused Ranjan Kumar. Hence this appeal.

4. The defence case as is evident from the mode of cross examination as well as statement having been recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of complete denial as well as of false and malicious prosecution. However, neither any DW nor any kind of document has been exhibited on behalf of the accused.

5. While assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for both the appellants have conjointly submitted that the prosecution case is found full of infirmities on account thereof, the judgment impugned did not justify its prevalence. To substantiate the same, it has been submitted that perusal of the evidence of the PWs, it is apparent that mandatory provisions, so prescribed under the N.D.P.S. Act, have not been complied with and that being so, apart from having deficiency in the oral as well as documentary evidence, the judgment would not sustain.

6. Now coming to the evidence, it has been submitted that all the material, independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution whereupon they were declared