The prosecution must establish compliance with legal provisions and prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - The appellant has assailed the judgement of conviction dated February 18, 2021 and the order of sentence dated February 19, 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Judge Special Court, NDPS Act, Berhampore, Murshidabad in N.D.P.S. Case No. 387 of 2017 convicting the appellant under Section 18 (b) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotic Substances Act, 1985 and sentencing the appellant to 15 years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

2. The prosecution had brought three persons including the appellant to trial on the charges under Sections 18 (b), 21 (c), and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. According to the prosecution, the police had received credible information that smugglers were delivering narcotic goods to their agent. After receipt of such information, a raid had been conducted. They had apprehended the appellant and recovered heroin of 500 grams from him. The appellant had made a leading statement facilitating seizure of crude opium of 31.5 kg and cancelled currency notes. After completion of investigations, the police had submitted charge sheet on April 23, 2018 against the appellant and two others. Those two other accused had subsequently participated at the trial.

3. The learned Court had framed charges on October 6, 2018 under Section 21 (c) of the Act of 1985 against the appellant which was subsequently altered to Section 18 (b) of the Act of 1985 on February 17, 2021. The two other accused had been charged under Section 29 of the Act of 1985 on October 6, 2018.

4. The appellant and the two other accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the prosecution had examined nine witnesses. The prosecution had tendered 18 documents which were marked as exhibits. The prosecution had also tendered 11 material exhibits which were marked as such. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution the appellant along with the two other accused persons were questioned under Section 313 of the criminal procedure code on July 9, 2020 when they had denied the allegations. The appellant and the two other accused persons did not adduce any evidence at the trial.

5. The appellant had filed the present appeal through an advocate. Such advocate had been found not to be appearing in support of the appeal for a considerable period of time. Consequently, the Court had appointed an amicus curiae. The learned amicus curiae had made his submissions. The appellant had appointed a senior advocate to represent him who was also heard.

6. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that, the police did not comply with the mandatory provisions under Section 42 of the Act of 1985. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that, such compliance is mandatory. In support of such contention, reliance has been places on 2009 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases 539 (Karnal Singh vs. State of Haryana).

7. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that, the police had made a General Diary on October 28, 2015 at 10:25 hours. The police had recovered 490 grams of Heroin from the appellant and seized 31.500 grams of crude Opium and 385 pieces of old Indian currency notes from the store room of the appellant on October 28, 2017 at about 16:35 hours. The police did not adduce any evidence with regard to report being sent by the Investigating Officer to his superior within 72 hours, in compliance with the mandate of Section 42(2) of the Act of 1985. Reliance has been made to the findings reported by the Learned Trial Judge on such issue.

Reliance has been placed on 2016 Volume 11 Supreme Court Cases 687 (State of Rajasthan vs. Jag Raj Singh), 2011 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases 130 (Rajender Singh vs. State of Haryana), 2016 Volume 14 Supreme Court Cases 358 (Darshan Singh vs. State of Harayana).

8. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that Section 52 A of the Act of 1985 has not been complied with. No evidence had been le