Ashutosh Kumar, J. – The appellant stands convicted under Section 20 (b)(ii)(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 vide judgment dated 25.07.2017 passed by the learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gaya in N.D.P.S. Case No. 12 of 2012, arising out of Barachatti P.S. Case No. 192 of 2012. By order dated 02.08.2017, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for twelve years, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer R.I. for two years.

2. 100 kilograms of Ganja is said to have been recovered from a box of a vehicle which apparently was being driven by the appellant.

3. Hence, the case against him.

4. With respect to the owner of the vehicle, viz. Chandrawati Devi, the investigation has been kept pending.

5. The Advocate-on-record, viz., Mr. Rakesh Narayan Singh, has given no objection in the case. We have requested Mr. Chandra Kant, the learned Advocate, to be amicus in this case. He has accepted the afore-noted request and has assisted this court in the hearing of this case.

6. The State has been represented by Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, the learned APP.

7. The FIR was lodged by Krishna Kumar (P.W. 2) on 04.05.2012 alleging that on the same date, while he along with the police party was on patrolling duty, he found one pick-up van bearing Reg. No. BR 04D 6428 being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Seeing the police vehicle, the driver of the said pick-up speeded up the vehicle. While doing so, he lost control and the vehicle met with an accident. The driver wanted to run away but was apprehended. When the vehicle was searched, it was found that a box was kept in the body in which one quintal of Ganja was kept. In front of two of the local witnesses viz. Kameshwar Yadav (P.W. 6) and Sita Paswan (P.W. 3), a seizure list was prepared. On inquiry from the appellant, the driver of the pick-up van, it was learnt that the vehicle belonged to one Chandrawati Devi of Saran district. The vehicle as also the seized narcotics were brought to the police station, whereafter the formal FIR was registered.

8. On this self-statement of P.W. 2, referred to above, a case vide Barachatti P.S. Case No. 192 of 2012, dated 04.05.2012, was registered for investigation against the appellant for the offence under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

9. The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and kept the investigation pending with respect to Chandrawati Devi, the so-called owner of the vehicle.

10. The Trial Court, after having examined six witnesses on behalf of the prosecution including the Investigator and two of the search and seizure witnesses, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

11. Mr. Chandra Kant, the learned Amicus has argued that no provision of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 has been followed in drawing samples of the Ganja and sending it immediately for the forensic examination. He has further submitted that there is nothing on record as also in the judgment which would indicate that the material exhibit or its destruction note was placed before the Trial Court for confirmation that the narcotics was seized in the operation as narrated by P.W. 2, the informant. He has further submitted that there has been an unusual delay in sending the samples for forensic examination. The samples were sent on 28.06.2012 after obtaining permission of the learned Trial court, but the same was received on 04.07.2012. The delay is absolutely inexplicable.

12. Apart from this, it has been submitted that the seizure witnesses also have not supported the prosecution case in its entirety as P.W. 6 has been declared hostile; whereas P.W. 3 appears to be a stock witness of the police.

13. We have examined the deposition of the witnesses, especially of the informant and the Investigator and have found that the submission raised on behalf of the appellant by the amicus is correct.

14. Though, the informant (P.W. 2) claims to have seized the Ganja at the place of occurrence only, but there is nothi