The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with statutory provisions, the reliability of evidence presented, and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13-2-2004 delivered in Special Case No. 46/2003 by Shri R. S. Sharma, learned Sessions Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Bastar, Headquarter at Jagdalpur whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and was sentenced to R.I. for 4 years and a fine of Rs. 15.000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 1 year.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 17-10-2003 Sub-Inspector Arvind Dwivedi, Station House Officer of Police Station-Pharasgaon upon receiving secret information about the possession of illicit ganja by a person, reached Badedongar Triangle along with staff and witnesses and apprehended the appellant who was carrying a red and blue coloured regzine bag. After serving the appellant with a notice under Section 50 of the Act and also after obtaining the consent of the appellant to be searched by him, Sub-Inspector Arvind Dwivedi P.W. 5 searched the regzine bag carried by the appellant and found ganja like substance therein. The substance was weighed by Tej Ram Sahu P.W. 3 at the place of occurrence and was found to weigh 8 kilogram. Two samples of 50 gm. each were separated and packed and marked as Arts. A-1 and A-2 and were sealed. Specimen impression of seal used by the Sub-Inspector Arvind Dwivedi Station House Officer was also prepared Vide Ex. P-15. The sealed packet containing 7 kilogram and 900 gram ganja and also the two sealed sample packets marked as Arts. A-1 and A-2 were entrusted by Station House Officer Arvind Dwivedi P.W. 5 to Head Constable Jaideo Bhoi P.W. 2 on 17-10-2003. On 19-10-2003 vide memo Ex. P-24 of the Superintendent of Police, Bastar, one sample packet Article A-l along with specimen impression of the seal was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur through Constable Genda Lal Sahu. The sample packet A-1 was received in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur on 21-10-2003. Vide report dated 13-1-2004 Ex. P-26 it was opined by the Forensic Science Laboratory that the sample packet contained ganja.

3. After completion of investigation, the appellant herein was prosecuted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act. The appellant adjured the guilt, pleaded false implication and led no evidence in defence. The prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses. Relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid in para 1.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the conviction of the appellant on the ground that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act, since the notice Ex. P-10 does not record as to which of the options were exercised by the appellant. It is contended that since the appellant is an illiterate person, his thumb impression was taken on Sahamati Patra Ex. P-19 at a later point of time. It was thus contended that non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act vitiates the prosecution. It was also argued that there is variance between the weighment panchnama Ex. P-7 and the testimony of Tej ram Sahu P.W. 3. Ex. P-7 showed that weighment was done at the Badedongar Triangle. Pharasgaon whereas the testimony of Tejram Sahu P.W. 3 revealed that the weighment was done in his shop in his absence. Lastly, it was contended that Baliram P.W. 4 an independent witness did not depose against the appellant in para 1 of his testimony and was unable to identify the appellant as the person from whom the ganja was seized. It was also argued that non-examination of independent witness Chamra Ram by the prosecution creates a serious dent in the prosecution case. It was also submitted that both the samples Arts. A-1 and A-2 were not sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory. On these grounds, learned Counsel for the appellant prayed that conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant be se