Strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is required, and any non-compliance must benefit the accused.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. All the three appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 20(b)ii(c) and 23(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and appellant Munna Mohammad (Cr. App (SJ) No. 78 of 2016) has been additionally convicted under Section 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act apart from the aforesaid Sections. By judgment dated 21.12.2015 passed by the learned 1st Addition District and Sessions Judge, Motihari, East Champaran in N.D.P.S. Case No. 121 of 2012 and by order dated 23.12.2015, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years for each of the offences, to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each and in default of payment of fine to further suffer R.I. for six months.

3. The appellants were found to be in possession of Charas, weighing about 12 Kilograms. All the appellants were found to be in possession of a number of packets containing Charas which they were carrying on their persons.

4. Chandeshwar Paswan (P.W. 7) who at the relevant time was the S.H.O. of Ramgarhwa Police Station lodged a self-statement on 10.10.2012 alleging that on 09.10.2012 at about 11 o’clock in the night, he received information that some unknown men and women are approaching the house of the appellant/Munna Mohammad in village Raghunathpur and their movement and conduct was suspicious. This information was recorded by him in the police diary and thereafter he along with SAP constables proceeded towards village Raghunathpur on a private vehicle. The house of the appellant/Munna Mohammad was raided. From his possession, three packets containing Charas was found. Similarly, from the possession of appellant/Daroga Patel (in Cr. App (SJ) No. 143 of 2016) three packets were recovered. From the possession of Sita Devi and Sizra Khatoon (in Cr. App (SJ) No. 141 of 2016) six packets each from beneath their wearing apparel was also found. A total of 18 packets containing 12 Kgs. of Charas was recovered. The appellants accepted the recovered items as narcotics which was to be sent to Kanpur. The appellants also disclosed that one Udit Kumar who was present in another room, was the owner of the aforesaid narcotics. Udit Kumar, who was arrested, disclosed that the narcotics was brought from Nepal and had to be sent to Uttar Pradesh stealthily. A seizure list was prepared in presence of Sanjiv Kumar and Rakesh Dixit who have been examined as PWs. 4 and 5 at the trial. On the basis of the aforesaid self-statement, a case vide Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 126 of 2012 dated 10.10.2012 under Sections 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was registered for investigation.

5. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet whereupon cognizance was taken and the trial court after examining eight witnesses on behalf of the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.

6. The learned advocates appearing for the appellants have challenged the impugned judgment and order of conviction as being bad in the eyes of law, primarily on the ground that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 (ii), 50, 52A and 55 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) have not been complied with, rendering the conviction of the appellants absolutely unjustified. It has been submitted that the entire recovery was from the personal possession of the appellants, who at the time of search and seizure were not made known that they had the option of getting themselves searched before a Gazetted Officer. While they were searched, the members of the police party also did not offer themselves for any search by the appellants.

7. Learned counsels appearing for the appellants have further argued that the secret information which was received by P.W. 7 was not reduced in writing and sent to the superior police officer as mandated under Section 42 (ii) of the Act.

8. The samples were never dra