The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the offences beyond reasonable doubt, including compliance with legal provisions and preservation of evidence.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - The appellants have assailed the judgement of conviction dated August 24, 2021 and the order of sentence dated August 26, 2021 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 12 Court, Judge, Special Court under NDPS Act in Sessions Trial No. 09 (04) 2019 arising out of Sessions Case No. 04 (12) 2018 convicting the appellants under section 21 (c)/29 of the Narcotics and Psychotic Substances Act, 1985.

2. According to the prosecution, the appellants had been found in front of a shop under the name and style of Laksmi Store at CZ-24, Metropolitan, under Pragati Maidan police station at the intervening hours of July 16, 2018 and July 17, 2018 in between 22:20 hours to 00:30 hours carrying and possessing heroin of about 255 grams in aggregate without any valid license or document in violation of the Act of 1985 with the common intention and in a criminal conspiracy with each other, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 21 (c)/29 of the Act of 1985.

3. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that, the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has not been able to establish the place of occurrence. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial. According to him, the prosecution has not been able to point out the exact location of the place of occurrence. The prosecution did not produce any rough sketch map of the place of occurrence at the trial. He has referred to the statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and submitted that, the appellants had contended that, they were apprehended from different locations and were illegally framed. According to him, in absence of the prosecution establishing the place of occurrence with a reasonable degree of certainty, the appellants should be acquitted.

4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that, the prosecution did not comply with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act of 1985. In support of such contention, he has relied upon 2011 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 392 (Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi) and 2011 Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases 609 (Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat).

5. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants has referred to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He has contended that, PW-6 had stated that, he had taken out the samples from the Malkhana on July 20, 2018 for the purpose of sending the same to the forensic laboratory. Since he was late in arriving at the forensic laboratory, the samples were not accepted. Since July 20, 2018 was a Friday and the next two days were holidays, he had visited the forensic laboratory on July 23, 2018 and deposited the same for chemical analysis and report.

6. Referring to such deposition of the PW-6, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that, the samples were therefore with the investigating officer who was PW 6 for more than two days. Therefore, there was every possibility of the samples being tampered with. It would be incorrect to base an order of conviction on the basis of such evidence. In support of such contention, he has relied upon 2018 Volume 18 Supreme Court Cases 355 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Hansraj alias Hansu).

7. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants has drawn the attention of the Court to the contents of the first information report. He has submitted that, the first information report speaks of brass seal. The presence of such brass seal has not been established at the trial by the prosecution, on the samples or the packets prepared.

8. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that, the prosecution did not comply with the provisions of section 52A of the act of 1985. In support of such contentions, he has relied upon 2008 Volume 16 Supreme Court Cases 417 (Noor A