Non-compliance with statutory requirements for search and seizure under the NDPS Act renders the prosecution's case doubtful, leading to the reversal of conviction.

JUDGMENT :

I have already herd the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2022 and order of sentence dated 20.12.2022, passed by learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, N.D.P.S.Act, Muzaffarpur in N.D.P.S. Case No. 11 of 2020, arising out of Sakra P.S.Case No. 78 of 2020, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and section 22(C) of the N.D.P.S.Act, hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) and Section 22(c), respectively, of the Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine amount, the appellant was further directed to undergo S.I. for two years.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Rajesh Kumar, ASI (P.W.3), got a secret information that the appellant and one Sonu Sah had concealed ganja in their scrap shop. The informant entered sanha no. 805 in the station diary on 26.02.2020 and after informing the superior officials, he constituted a raiding party/team, comprising ASI Mahesh Kumar (P.W.4), ASI Ram Uday Sharma (P.W.1), ASI Chaitu Ram (P.W.2) and the members of the armed forces. The informant requested Pankaj Kumar (P.W.6), who was the Circle Officer, to be part of the raiding team. Thereafter, the raiding team proceeded to the place of occurrence with necessary kits and papers. When the raiding team reached to the scrap shop of the appellant, some of the labourers and persons assembled there. In presence of two independent witnesses Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) and Shri Bagwan Kumar (not examined). The scrap shop was searched and 32 packets of ganja, weighing 10 kg each was recovered from his shop. The raiding team weighed the contraband by borrowing digital weighing machine from a nearby shopkeeper. The labourers and the independent witnesses apprised the raiding party that the appellant might be present at his house. Then the raiding team went to the house of the appellant and he was arrested in course of fleeing away. Some persons also assembled there and in presence of two independent witnesses Sanjay Kumar (not examined) and Sushil Kumar (P.W.8), 10 packets of ganja containing five kg each, in total, 50 kgs were recovered. It has also been mentioned in the FIR that from the dickey of his swift car bearing registration number BR-06M-7811, two digital weighing machines, one packet weighing 15 kg, one packet of eight kg and eight packets of 4.5 kg each containing ganja were recovered. The seizure list was prepared in presence of the above-mentioned two independent witnesses. The appellant disclosed that he along with his brother Santosh kumar and Sonu Sah used to deal in illicit business of ganja.

4. On the basis of the fardbayan of the informant (Ext.4), the formal FIR was drawn and the case was registered under Sections 20(b), 22(b) 27(a) of the Act on 26.02.2020 at about 12.30 noon. Thereafter, the investigation was carried out and the charge sheet no. 371 of 2020 (Ext.7) was submitted against the appellant by the Investigating Authorities on 22.05.2020 under Sections 120B of the IPC and Sections 20(b)/20(c) and 27(a) of the Act. As co-accused Santosh Sah and Sonu Sah were absconding, the investigation was kept pending against them.

5. On the basis of the material collected during the course of investigation, the special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur took cognizance vide order dated 11.09.2020/25.09.2020 against the appellant under Section 20(b),22(b) and 27(a) of the Act and transferred the case to the court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur for disposal.

6.The charges were framed against the appellant on 17.12.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b) (ii), (c) and 22(c) and 27(a) of the Act.

7. During trial, eight witnessed were examined on