IMPORTANT POINT
Strict compliance with statutory requirements and procedures under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 is essential, and the prosecution must establish a prima facie case before shifting the burden to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

All these criminal appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants Sunil Kumar, Md. Sabbir Khan and Upendra Kumar @ Upendra Yadav in Cr. App(DB) Nos. 705, 724 and 910 of 2018 respectively.

3. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellants Amrita Singh, Rajendra Kumar Arya and Yatendra Chauhan in Criminal App (DB) Nos. 700, 710 and 716 of 2018 respectively. On our request, Mr. Mishra has rendered assistance on behalf of these appellants also. The State has been represented by Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned APP.

4. All the appellants have been convicted under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 12 years, a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each for the offence under Section 20(b) (ii)(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act; and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer R.I. for one year. For the offence under Section 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the appellants have been sentenced for 12 years, a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer R.I. for one year. For the offence under Section 29 of the N.D.P.S Act, the appellants have been directed to suffer R.I. for three years vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.04.2018 and 23.04.2018 respectively, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gaya in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 01 of 2017, arising out of Barachatti P.S. Case No. 344 of 2016.

5. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

6. The appellants were found to be sitting in two vehicles, which were intercepted by the police party, from where a total of 294 Kgs. of Ganja was recovered. Two of the persons managed to run away who have yet not been apprehended.

7. The FIR was lodged by Raj Kumar Tiwary (P.W. 9) who has alleged that in the night of 04.09.2016 at about 1:30 P.M., he received a secret information that a gang involved in transport and sale of narcotics is attempting to smuggle Ganja through Orrisa and Jharkhand. On such information, a police team was constituted and a picket was put up on the main road. Two vehicles were intercepted at an interval of about 45 minutes. From one of the vehicles, 99 Kgs. of Ganja was recovered whereas from the other, 195 Kgs. was recovered.

8. All the appellants were arrested. A seizure list was prepared and according to P.W. 9, samples were drawn at the place of seizure. Thereafter, the seized Ganja was brought to the police station and the FIR was registered vide Barachatti P.S. Case No. 344 of 2016 dated 04.09.2016 under Sections 8, 20(b)(ii)(c), 22(i), 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

9. The investigation was conducted by Prasidh Kumar Singh, the I.O. (P.W. 7) who found evidence against the appellants for putting them up on trial. He has submitted the chargesheet whereupon cognizance was taken and the case was tried.

10. The trial court, after having examined nine witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the defence, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.

11. Mr. Mishra has argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. He says so for the reason that all the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 have been blatantly flouted. The sampling process, as mandated under the standing orders of the department have not been followed. The provisions contained in Section 42, namely of recording the information so received by P.W. 9 and transmitting the same to a superior Police Officer within 72 hours has not been followed. In fact, such information has not been reduced into writing nor sent to the Superior Police Officer as ordained under Section 42 of the Act.

12. The evidence with respect to safe-keeping of the material exhibit viz. Ganja is absolutely lacking. But for one statement by P.W. 9 that he had bro