The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strict compliance with the procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and the obligation on the investigator to conduct a fair and just investigation, ensuring no oppression or injustice to the accused.

Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 08.12.2015 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), 1st Court, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in Special (NDPS) Case No.08/2005 convicting the appellants under Section 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (the Act). By the impugned order the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh each. In default, they were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

(a) On 19.12.2005, information was received at the Chopra Police Station that three youths namely (i) Pintu Mondal (ii) Md. Sintu and (iii) Sk. Safique all of village Mahadevpur, P.S.-Pandua, Dist.- Hooghly, West Bengal had boarded a bus of NBSTC bearing No. WB-63/2819 from Alipurduar to Kolkata and were carrying a huge quantity of ganja concealed in their luggage. The matter was forthwith entered in the police station General Diary and the information forwarded to SDPO, Islampur and CI Islampur for action.

(b) Upon receipt of the information, the de facto complainant being a Sub-Inspector of Chopra Police Station along with other police officers left for Sonarpur police station to take action on the reported information.

(c) At approximately 19:25 hours the NBSTC bus bearing No.WB63/2819 bound from Alipurduar to Kolkata arrived at the Sonarpur checkpoint. Thereafter, the de facto complainant got into the bus and could locate three youths with two suitcases and a handbag beneath their seats.

(d) The de facto complainant enquired of the youths whether the two suitcases and handbag belonged to them. The three individuals admitted that the luggage was their property but they refused to display the contents. Accordingly, the de facto complainant brought them to the check post and informed them that he had specific information that they were carrying ganja and he proposed to search their luggage.

(e) Thereafter, the de facto complainant called two independent witnesses namely (i) Dulal Das and (ii) Nikhil Das to be present during the search and interrogation following which the three youths gave their respective names and addresses. Thereafter, the de facto complainant informed them whether they would prefer to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. In the meantime, Guruprosad Chatterjee, CI Islampur had arrived at the bus checkpoint and the youths agreed to be examined in front of him.

(f) The luggage of the three individuals was then searched and the following items were recovered:

(i) From one suitcase carried by Pintu Mondal, 15 Kg 100 grams of Ganja was found in a yellow colour polythene wrapped in newspaper. From this ganja, two samples of 50 gram each were taken.

(ii) From the suitcase carried by Md. Sintu, 15 Kg 100 grams of Ganja wrapped with the newspaper was recovered of which two samples of 50 gram each were taken.

(iii) From the handbag carried by Sk. Safique 3 packets were found. From the first packet 3.600 Kg, from the second packet 3.350 Kg and from the third packet 1.800 Kg making a total of 8.750 Kg Ganja was recovered. From this ganja, three samples of 50 gram each were also taken.

(g) All the Ganja, the luggage and also the bus fare tickets were seized by the de facto complainant and the blocks of ganja weighed. The accused persons could not produce any valid documents explaining how they were carrying the seized items.

(h) Thereafter, the OC registered a case with Chopra P.S. and the investigation was entrusted to the IO who sent the samples to FSL for chemical examination. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act against all the three accused. The appellants pleaded not guilty.

3. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Proced