IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must strictly adhere to the procedural requirements of the N.D.P.S. Act, and failure to do so can result in the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Shailendra Singh, J.) :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP appearing for the State.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Buxar, in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 31 of 2021, CIS No. 32 of 2021, arising out of Buxar Industrial P.S. Case No. 159 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.D.P.S. Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) for the said offence and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (1) year.

3. The Substance of the prosecution’s case is that the Station House officer (in short ‘S.H.O.’), Mukesh Kumar, of Buxar Industrial Area P.S. got the secret information on 22.08.2021 at about 06.05 A.M. that one person namely, Santosh Kumar Singh @ Rasgulla Singh (appellant) indulged in selling of narcotic material namely, ‘Ganja’ in his newly constructed house situated at Kathkouli village, thereafter the matter was reported by him to his senior officer and he also requested to appoint a Magistrate and in this regard a necessary entry was made in the station diary and after that the Block Development Officer (in short B.D.O.) posted at Buxar was deputed and thereafter, for the verification of the said secret information, B.D.O., S.I., Haresh Kumar and constables namely, Kundan Kumar, Upendra Kumar and Ravi Ranjan Kumar proceeded from police station to Kathkouli village and reached near the house of accused Santosh Kumar Singh @ Rasgulla Singh.

As per further allegation, when the police party reached at the house of accused, one person, who was present in the said house, on seeing the police party, tried to flee away through the gate but on chase he was apprehended by the police party and on interrogation, he revealed his name as Santosh Kumar Singh @ Rasgulla Singh (appellant) and thereafter a notice under Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act was given to him for the purpose of communicating the intention of police party to search his house, on which he gave his consent and thereafter the informant along with the deputed B.D.O. and two independent persons namely, Jai Prakash Singh and Raju Singh entered into the house of accused and during course of search, from one room situated in north-west corner on the first floor of the house, two steel boxes containing 5 sacks were recovered, out of the said boxes, the bigger box contained 3 sacks and the small box contained 2 sacks, after that the sacks were weighed with the help of weighing scale (Tarajoo) which was also found in the room and after weighing, the weight of the each sack was measured as 10.9 kg, 10.9 kg, 16.2 kg, 16.0 kg and 12.5 kg which was 66.5 kg in total and after that the seizure list was prepared in the presence of B.D.O. and independent witnesses, upon which they made their signatures and thereafter sample was taken from each sack and after that the sample and rest contrabands were sealed and marked as A, B, C, D and E and the sample was marked as A1 and one copy of the seizure memo was given to the accused Santosh Kumar Singh @ Rasgulla Singh and he was made aware of the offence which had been committed by him and then he was officially arrested.

4. The informant recorded his self-statement, Exhibit-P-12, describing the above-mentioned allegations, on that basis the formal FIR bearing Buxer (Industrial Area) P.S. Case No. 159 of 2021 was lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/22/27/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which set the criminal law in motion.

5. Here, it is relevant to mention that the appellant, at the time of his arrest, disclosed to the police party that seized contrabands were supplied t