The court upheld the conviction under section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the Act of 1985 despite discrepancies in evidence and compliance with standing orders.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - The appellant has assailed the judgement of conviction dated January 20, 2020 and the order of sentence dated February 7, 2020 passed by the learned Judge, Bench I, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in NDPS Case No. 26 of 2015.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on September 24, 2015, the police had received a credible source information that one narcotic drug seller/supplier from Bihar would come to sell/supply narcotic drugs in the North Port Police Station area in the morning of September 25, 2015. Accordingly the police had formed a raiding team, and took permission of the appropriate authority on September 24, 2015 to conduct the raid. On September 25, 2015 at about 7:30 AM the police team had left for the spot with the source, weighing scale, narcotic drug detection-kit and packing materials and other accessories. At about 8 A.M in the morning, the team had reached the northern side footpath of Howrah Bridge. The source had led the team to the spot where they started to maintain watch. At about 8:40 A.M, the source had pointed out one male person coming along the northern side of the footpath of Howrah Bridge from west to east direction carrying a red and blue coloured bag on his right shoulder and one black coloured rucksack bag on his back. The raiding team had intercepted such person. The raiding team had disclosed their identities and informed the person about the purpose of detention. A crowd had gathered at the spot. The police had requested members of the crowd to stand as independent witnesses for the search/seizure under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotic Substances Act, 1985. The police team had found nine pieces of rectangular/circular shaped block of flowering and fruiting tops of cannabis plant commonly known as Ganja having characteristic smell wrapped with brown coloured adhesive tapes weighing about 9.500 kg in all. The police team had also found one block weighing about 12.800 kg wrapped with blue coloured polythene and cello tapes from one red/blue coloured travel bag, which the accused was carrying on his right shoulder. The police had taken small quantity of the contraband from each block and found all to be positive for the presence of Ganja. The police had weighed the contraband seized with the help of the weighing machine. A seizure list had been prepared on September 25, 2015. The seized articles had been packed, labelled and sealed on the spot in presence of the witnesses and the accused. They had been marked as A, B, and C. A sample of total hundred grams of Ganja from the mother Exhibit had been packed, labelled and sealed in another envelope and marked as D. The accused person could not render any explanation for possession of the Ganja.

3. On completion of the investigations, the police had submitted a charge sheet. The appellant had been charged for committing an offence punishable under section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the Act of 1985 on April 18, 2016. The appellant had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution had examined seven witnesses. The prosecution had tendered various documents which were marked as Exhibits. The prosecution had also relied upon Material Exhibits at the trial. In the statement of the appellant, recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant had claimed to be innocent, and falsely implicated. He had claimed that, the police arrested him falsely at Sealdah station when he got down from Balia Sealdah Train at 4 A.M. The appellant had however not adduced any evidence at the trial.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant has contended that, the prosecution was unable to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt at the trial. He has referred to the manner in which the sampling was done. He has contended that, the sample prepared and sent for chemical examination was not a representative's sample, thereby vitiating the prosecution case.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has s