IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of complying with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly in relation to search, seizure, and sampling procedures.

Order :

Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.09.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge NDPS, Korba, District Korba, in Special Criminal Case No. 11/2012, by which the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-

2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that while vehicle checking on 12.12.2011, the Police of Police Station – Pali, District Korba, received information from the secret informer that the contraband article Ganja was illegally being transported for the purpose of sale in vehicle Indica Car bearing registration number OR 16-C-9714. The said information was forwarded to the higher authorities. After receiving direction for conducting proceedings, the said vehicle Indica Car No. OR 16-C-9714 was intercepted and search was made. In search of the said vehicle, 70 Kilograms of Ganja contained in three sacks was allegedly found in the said vehicle which was in joint possession of the accused persons, four in number, and thereafter, the same was sealed and seized. Thereafter, sample packets were prepared and the same were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory Raipur. On the basis of the above facts, crime was registered against the accused persons including the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Korba, District- Korba against the appellants/accused persons. The appellants denied the charges and pleaded innocence. After recording of the evidence of prosecution witnesses and hearing arguments of respective parties, the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Korba, District – Korba convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused persons as aforementioned. Hence, these appeals.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the impugned judgment is illegal and against the law as the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act so far it relates to search, seizure and sampling are concerned, have not been followed. Even the Investigating Officer, in his statement has admitted this fact. The contraband article was not seized from the exclusive possession of the appellants/accused but from the dickey of the vehicle in which they were travelling. Mr. Dubey further submits that the appellants have clearly stated in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they have been falsely implicated by the police when the police demanded illegal gratification and when the appellants refused and said that they would report the matter to the higher authorities, they were beaten and implicated in this case. Even when the seizure was being made, there were no witnesses and the witnesses were called only at the time of weighing of the contraband article. The independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. The samples were also not drawn as per the requirement under the law. The learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts and evidences available on record while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that there are major contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution witness’s police statements and their Court statements. It is further submitted that there are substantial developments in the prosecution witness’s Court statements. The prosecution witnesses are not reliable. The independent witnesses have not supported the story of the prosecution. Since the seized Ganja has not been produced before the learned Court, and therefore, the story of the prosecution is not reliable and also the samples have not been taken as per provision of the NDPS Ac