In cases involving stringent punishment provisions, such as those under the NDPS Act, strict compliance with the law regarding search and seizure is mandatory. The prosecution must prove the search and seizure beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence must be corroborated by independent witnesses.

( 1 ) MD. Sayeed faced charge under Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the N. D. P. S. Act, in connection with N. D. P. S. Case No. 49 of 2001 before the learned Judge, 6th Bench of City Sessions Court, Kolkata and after conclusion of trial, Md. Sayeed was convicted and he was sentenced to suffer R. I, for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac), in default, to suffer S.. for three years more.

( 2 ) MD. Sayeed, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence has preferred this appeal. Mr. Jash along with mr. Saha, appeared for appellant, Md. Sayeed and Mr. L. M. Dutta, with mr. Pinaki Bhattacharya, appear for the State.

( 3 ) WE have examined the prosecution evidence, considered the judgment of the learned trial Judge impugned in this appeal and we have also considered submissions of both Mr. Jash and Mr. L. M. Dutta and we intend to dispose of this appeal by delivering our judgment in open Court.

( 4 ) THE prosecution allegation against Md. Sayeed has been that on 8th November, 2001, at about 1300 hour on a foot-path near State transport Bus Terminal at Ultadanga Main Road, a gunny bag containing ganja was found in possession of Md. Sayeed and ultimately that bag was seized by P. W. 3 Samir Kumar Biswas, in presence of local witnesses, sample was taken and Md. Sayeed was detained for further follow up action.

( 5 ) P. W. 1, subsequently lodged a formal complaint against md. Sayeed and the sample taken on 8th November, 2001, was forwarded to the laboratory of the Narcotic Control Bureau and the examiner after examination found the sample to be that of ganja.

( 6 ) ON the basis of the complaint submitted by P. W. 1, Md. Sayeed was asked to face charge as indicated earlier.

( 7 ) DURING trial before the learned Judge, prosecution side examined in all six witnesses, of them P. W. 1 filed the formal complaint and he had no knowledge about the alleged seizure of the contraband article from md. Sayeed, P. W. 2. was the chemical examiner, who on receipt of the sample from N. C. B. , prepared report indicating the sample to be that of ganja, P. W. 3, was Mr. Samir Kumar Biswas, according to prosecution, he was leader of the raiding party and he intercepted Md. Sayeed and recovered the bag allegedly containing ganja in presence of P. W. 4, and p. W. 5, P. W. 6, was the godown supervisor of the N. C. B. at the relevant time.

( 8 ) FROM the evidence of P. W. 3, who appears to be the main witness for the prosecution, it transpires that in presence of two local witnesses, he intercepted Md. Sayeed and made the search and seizure and, unfortunately those local witnesses were not produced during trial.

( 9 ) THE learned Trial Judge, having regard to the prosecution evidence, mainly deposition of P. W. 3, P. W. 4, P. W. 5 and relying on the seizure list and the statement given by Md. Sayeed during his detention and on the basis of report of the chemical examiner, found substance in the prosecution allegation and, accordingly, the learned Judge convicted md. Sayeed and recorded the order of sentence against him.

( 10 ) APPEARING for Md. Sayeed, Mr. Jash, has placed before us the prosecution evidence both oral and documentary.

( 11 ) MR. Jash, contends that in this case, surprisingly enough, save and except P. W. 3, Samir Kumar Biswas, no-body came forward to support the search and seizure and, in fact, on examination of the statement of p. W. 4 and P. W. 5, it appears that although they were physically present at the place of occurrence and witnessed the search and seizure, they did not feel it necessary to sign as witness to the seizure list.

( 12 ) MR. Jash contends that although from the seizure list, we get signature of two persons allegedly stated to be local independent witnesses, but for the reasons best known to the officer of N. C. B. , those witnesses were not produced, and this would clearly indicate that signature of those person was fictitiously procured and there was prac