The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of complying with mandatory provisions of law for search and seizure, the necessity of producing seized materials as material objects during trial, and the impact of non-compliance and non-production on the prosecution's evidence.

Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.

Vide judgment of conviction dated 11.06.015 and order of sentence dated 15.06.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Jehanabad in N.D.P.S. Case No.02 of 2006/55 of 2014 found the sole appellant, Tej Narayan Singh guilty for an offence punishable under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years as well as to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo additional period of imprisonment for one year.

2. PW-2, Umesh Kumar Singh, Officer-in-Charge of Kurtha recorded his own statement on 19.01.2006 at about 6.00 a.m. in the courtyard of appellant, Tej Narayan Singh disclosing therein that being an absconder relating to Kurtha P.S. Case No.136 of 2001, on account of 'Jail Break', a raid was conducted at the house of one Shailendra Singh, which was found closed. Then thereafter, the house of appellant was raided and during course thereof, he was also found absent. His old infirm deaf mother was present. In the courtyard, four Ganja trees were found, which were uprooted, seized and then, carried away. The aforesaid exercise was done in presence of two seizure list witnesses namely Ashok Singh (PW-3) as well as Rajendra Manjhi (PW-6).

3. Kurtha P.S. Case No.05 of 2006 was registered under Section 20-21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, whereupon investigation commenced and after concluding the same, charge-sheet was submitted, ultimately facing the trial, meeting with the result, the subject matter of instant appeal.

4. Defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial as well as false implication at the instance of prosecution party, who became frustrated on account of being failed to nab the accused.

5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined seven PWs, out of whom, PW-1 Binod Singh, Dafadar, PW-2 Umesh Kumar Singh, the informant, PW-3 Ashok Singh, a seizure list witness, PW-4 Bajrangi Singh, I.O. of the case, PW-5 Sita Ram Paswan, one of the member of the raiding party, PW-6 Rajendra Manjhi, another seizure list witness and PW-7 Dinesh Prasad Singh, another member of raiding party. Side by side, also exhibited documents as Exhibit-1 fard-bayan, Exhibit-2 seizure list, Exhibit-3 formal F.I.R., Exhibit-4 signature of seizure list witnesses, Exhibit-5 carbon copy of forwarding letter, Exhibit-6 F.S.L. Report.

6. So far status of seizure list witnesses namely PW-3 Ashok Singh and PW-6 Rajendra Manjhi are concerned, though they admitted their presence over seizure list, but disowned the prosecution version. With regard to remaining witnesses, save and except Exhibit-4 the I.O., they being members of raiding party have substantiated the case of the prosecution with regard to presence of Ganja plant in courtyard of appellant/accused wherefrom it was uprooted, seized and taken away by them in natural way. PW-4, the Investigating Officer had stated that sample was sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination and as per Exhibit-6, the same has been identified to be Ganja.

7. Though, the gist of the oral evidence, as discussed above, inspires confidence that there happens to be recovery of Ganja plant from the courtyard of the appellant, but when their evidences have been minutely gone through, it is apparent that there happens to be some sort of dubious approach of the prosecution. As per Section 51 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the search and seizure is to be carried out in accordance with Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. and as per Sub-section -6 of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C., it is incumbent that a copy of the seizure list is to be served upon the inmates of the house. Admittedly, appellant was not present, but his mother was there (having no disclosure regarding other family members, if any) and so, a copy of seizure list would have been served upon her mother, which none of the witnesses including PW-2, informant, had claimed. That means to say, there h