The central legal point established in the judgment is the heavy burden on the prosecution to prove the essential elements required for conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, including the preservation of sample sanctity and the conscious possession of the illegal substance.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.06.2007 in Special Case No.1 /2007 by the Special Judge (under the N.D.P.S. Act), Bilaspur whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act') and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine ofRs.5000/- and in default of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2, Brief facts are that on 20.12.2006 on receiving secret information that the appellant was storing huge quantity of ganja at his residence in Ward No.11, Chakarabhata, Sub-Inspector Arvind Dwivedi P WA proceeded to the house of the appellant after completion of the necessary formalities. After searching the house of the appellant, he seized 16 kilograms ganja from one jute bag and 2.650 kilograms ganja from a rexine bag. Seized ganja and samples of 500 grams and 200 grams ganja taken there from were sealed and kept in the Malkhana for safe custody. Later, on 22.12.2006 vide EX.P.15 the samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis which opined vide EX.P.29 that the samples contained ganja. After completion of investigation, the appellant was prosecuted under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Act.

3. The appellant abjured the guilt, pleaded innocence and led evidence of one Ajeet Ram in defence to show that the house from which the ganja was alleged to have been seized belonged to his father Chaitooram.

4. Shri Suryakant Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. Government Advocate for the State were heard. Record is perused.

5. The law is well settled that heavy burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the sanctity of the samples analyzed by the Forensic Science Laboratory was not breached right from the preparation of the samples to its delivery at the Forensic Science Laboratory. In the present case, the report EX.P.29 of the Forensic Science Laboratory shows that the samples were delivered at the Forensic Science Laboratory on 23.12.2006 by Constable Keju Ram P.W.2. However, the testimony of Head Constable Gulal Sonwani P. W.3 shows that the samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 28.12.2006. He further stated categorically that the assertion of Constable Kejuram P.W. 2 that he took the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 23.12.2006 was false. Constable Kejuram P. W.2 deposed on oath that he had taken the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 22.2.2006 whereas the ganja was alleged to have been seized from the appellant on 22.12.2006. The testimony of Kejuram P. W.2 does not show that the samples were deposited by him in the Malkhana in a sealed condition. EX.P.18 which is a receipt of having deposited the seized ganja and the sample packets in the Malkhana also does not show that the two sample packets and the remaining quantity of ganja were deposited in a sealed condition. The order sheet dated 15.2.2007 on the date of filing challan also shows that the Mudde Mal was not produced before the learned trial Judge thereby depriving the trial Court of an opportunity to examine whether the jute bag and the rexine bag were in a sealed condition and that the seals tallied with the seals used by the Sub-inspector Arvind Dwivedi P. WA. The prosecution has thus failed to prove that the sanctity of sealed samples were preserved till they reached the Forensic Science Laboratory.

6. A perusal of the Talashi Panchnama EX.P.8 shows that during search ganja kept in one rexine bag was recovered from one room while ganja in jute bag was found in another room. In paragraph 20, Sub-Inspector Arvind Dwivedi P. WA admitted that other members of the family of the appellant also reside in the house, details of which, he could not divulge. He also admitted that he would not be able to say as to which member of the family was in possession of the rooms from where ganja was recovered. The witness further admitted that he ma