The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of strict compliance with procedural requirements under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, especially regarding the handling and custody of seized articles and samples.

JUDGMENT :

R.C.S. Samant, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 24-01-2014 passed in Special Criminal Case No.11/2012 by the Special Judge (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh convicting the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act, 1985') and sentencing them with R.I. for 20 years along with fine Rs.2,00,000/- with default stipulation.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is this, that on 02-08-2012 Sub-Inspector Rajaram Yadav (PW-6) received a confidential information, regarding transport of contraband Ganja from Orissa in a vehicle. The witnesses were summoned. Mukhbir Suchana Panchnama (Ex.-P/19A) was prepared. As the police officer did not have time to obtain search warrant, he prepared panchnama (Ex.-P/20A) in compliance of Section 42 of the Act, 1985. Sub-Inspector Rajaram Yadav (PW-6) proceeded with his team and the witnesses to the spot at Banjari Naka Rehtikhol. A blockade was created. The suspected vehicle bearing registration No. 09 CC 4281 was stopped. The vehicle was occupied by three persons including the driver. Both the appellants were found sitting in the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle absconded from the spot, however, the appellants were apprehended. The appellants were informed about the right to be searched in presence of Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The appellants gave their consent to be searched by Sub-Inspector Rajaram Yadav (PW-6) vide Ex.-P/2. Sub-Inspector Rajaram Yadav (PW-6) and his team gave the appellants opportunity to search them vide Ex.-P/3, Ex.-P/4 and Ex.-P/5, in which no objectionable substance was found in their presence. After this proceeding, gunny bags present by the side of seat of the appellants was opened, in which 8 packets were found in presence of appellant No.2 and 7 packets were found in presence of appellant No.1 vide Ex.-P/6. The contents of the packets were taken and tested by burning and smelling and it was confirmed as Ganja vide Ex.-P/7 and Ex.-P/8. After verification of weighing instrument vide Ex.-P/9, the weightment procedure was carried out, according to which 76.850 kg. Ganja was found to be in possession of appellant No.1 and 58.1 kg. Ganja was found to be in possession of appellant No.2 vide Ex.-P/11. Samples were prepared of the seized articles vide Ex.-P/10. The contraband, vehicle and additional number plates present in the vehicle were seized vide Ex.-P/12 and Ex.-P/13. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.-P/16. Sub-Inspector Rajaram Yadav (PW-6) recorded the statement of witnesses. Seizure of Ganja and samples was also made. After returning to the police station the seized articles were handed over to Malkhana Moharrir and receipt Ex.-P/22 was obtained. An information was prepared regarding the complete proceedings vide Ex.-P/21 for dispatch to the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) Saraipali and the same was dispatched, regarding which receipt was obtained. The samples of the seized articles were sent for FSL examination. The FSL report (Ex.-P/30) was received, according to which the contents of the sample packets was found to be Ganja. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed.

3. The appellant was charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act,1989. The appellants denied the charges and pleaded innocence. Learned trial Court commenced the trial and examined in total 10 witnesses from the prosecution side. On completion of the prosecution evidence the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied all the incriminating evidence present against them. The appellants/accused persons again made statement of their innocence and stated in defence that both the appellants had taken lift in the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle absconded from the spot, whereas, the appellants who had no con