Point of Law: Narcotics, Intoxicate and Liquor - Search and seizure – Investigation by Police officer - There is no legal proposition that evidence of police officials unless supported by independent evidence is unworthy of acceptance. Evidence of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on ground that they belong to police force and interested in investigation and their desire to see success of case. Prudence however requires that evidence of police officials who are interested in outcome of result of case needs to be carefully scrutinised and independently appreciated. Mere fact that they are police officials does not by itself give rise to any doubt about their creditworthiness.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2019 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS, Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No. 01/2017, convicting each of the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act') and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.05.2017, PW-5 Sub Inspector-Ibrahim Mohammad Qureshi was on patrolling, he received a secret information from the informant that two persons are coming from Orrisa carrying Ganja for sale, the said information was reduced to writing vide Ex.P-2. Independent witnesses namely Dhankumar and Vijay Kumar Yadav were summoned vide Ex.P-1. The police party along with the witnesses went to the spot, apprehended the accused/appellants, gave them notice vide Ex.P-3 under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and made them aware of their legal rights, on which they consented to be searched by the police officer. Personal search of the police party and the witnesses was also made by the appellants, on which nothing objectionable was recovered from them vide Ex.P-4 & 5. However, on search being made, 4 packets were recovered from one bag, 8 packets were recovered from another bag and 2 packets were recovered from the dickey of the motorcycle which contained Ganja like substance vide Ex.P-6. The said contraband was identified as Ganja by smelliing and burning vide contraband identification panchnama Ex.P-7. On weighment being done of the contraband, it was found to be 14 Kg and two samples, each of 100-100 gms, were drawn from the said contraband and the bags as well as the samples were seized and sealed vide Ex.P/11 & 12. Information regarding the entire proceedings was forwarded to SDO (Police) vide Ex.P-18, FIR vide Ex.P-31 was registered against the appellants under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The accused/appellants were arrested vide Ex.P-13 & 14. The remaining contraband was deposited in Malkhana. Samples were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per the report of FSL Raipur, the seized contraband was confirmed to be Ganja vide Ex.P-28. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act. The trial Court framed charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act against the accused/appellants which was denied by them and they prayed for trial.

3. The prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses PW-1 Dhankumar, PW-2 Vijay Kumar Statement, PW-3 Rajesh Kumar Nirala, PW-4 Yashvant Maravi, PW-5 Sub Inspector-Ibrahim Mohammad Qureshi, PW-6 R.K. Mishra and PW-7 Head Constable-Arjun Singh. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by them in their defence.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court without appreciating the overall evidence available on record has wrongly convicted the appellants by the impugned judgment. No independent witnesses in this case has supported the prosecution case. There are major contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act for conducting search and seizure have not been complied as required under the law. In these circumstances, conviction of the appellants under Section 20 (b) (ii) B of the NDPS, Act and sentence imposed thereunder b