The admissibility of police witnesses' evidence and the requirement of substantial compliance with statutory provisions are crucial legal principles established in this judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Gautam Chourdiya, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2020, passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raigarh (CG) in Special Criminal Case under the NDPS Act No. 17 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1985 (for short the NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 4 months.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.7.2018, Asst. Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Kotraroad, District Raigarh D.P. Bhardwaj (PW 9), received secret information that the appellant had brought Ganja to sell and kept it in the Almirah of her bedroom. The information was reduced into writing in Rojnamcha Sanha vide Ex. P22 and thereafter he sent Constable- Khirendra Jaltare (PW 8) with notice to call for the independent witnesses under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. which was also reduced into writing in Rojnamcha Sanha vide Ex. P23. Witnesses Kamlesh Kumar Singh (PW 3) and Amrender Kumar Singh (PW 4) were given the said notice.

2.1. The said witnesses were made aware of the secret information and thereafter, secret information panchanama Ex. P3 was prepared. Warrant panchanama without search warrant (Ex. P4) was prepared and all these information were forwarded to the City Superintendent of Police, Raigarh which was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha vide Ex. P25. Thereafter, he along with police staff and witnesses proceeded to the place of incident vide Ex. P27. After reaching to the spot, notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given to the accused/appellant in front of the witnesses vide Ex. P7 and she agreed to be searched by the lady Assistant Sub-Inspector, Santra Chouhan. Consent for search was obtained from the accused/appellant vide Ex. P8. Search of the witnesses and the police party was made by the appellant vide Ex. P5 and Ex. P6 on which nothing objectionable was found in their possession. Thereafter, in presence of the witnesses, search of the house of the appellant was made and Ganja kept in the Almirah in green colour polythene bag in the bed room of the appellant was seized vide Ex. P9. The seized article, after smelling and tasting was identified as Ganja vide Ex. P 10.

2.2. Komal Tandon (PW 5) was given notice for bringing Scale and weight and physical verification panchanama of the scale and weight was made vide Ex. P 12. On weighment of the contraband being made, it was found to be 1 kg, out of which 2 samples of 50 gm each were drawn, sealed and seized vide Ex. P14. Dehati Nalishi Ex. P28 was prepared on the spot, the appellant was arrested vide Ex. P 15 and information of her arrest was given to Smt. Janki Chouhan vide Ex. P29. The seized articles were deposited in the Malkhana and a receipt thereof was received vide Ex. P32.

3. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL, which confirmed the contraband to be Ganja vide Ex. P40. The entire proceedings of the incident were reduced into writing and forwarded to the City Superintendent of Police under Section 57 of NDPS the Act vide Ex. P37.

4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was filed against the accused/appellant. The accused/appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial.

5. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses i.e. Dorothiya Kindo (PW 1), Gulab Chand Bhargav (PW 2), Kamlesh Kumar Singh (PW 3), Amrender Kumar Singh (PW 4), Komal Tandon (PW 5), Manoj Kumar Chouhan (PW 6), Patwari- Abhishek Sahu (PW 7), Constable- Khirendra Kumar (PW 8), D.P. Bhardwaj (PW 9), Dukhiram Amliwar (PW 10), Anil Kumar Sahu (PW 11) and Assistant Sub-Inspector, Amit Kumar Patle (PW 12). Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which she denied the circumstances appearing agains