The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to produce reliable evidence, including the examination of witnesses and the integrity of seized evidence, to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. The Appellant challenges the judgment dated 29th September 2010 passed by the Special Judge - NDPS in SC No. N-58/08 convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) for being found in possession of 292 gms. of heroin as well as the judgment on sentence dated 6th October 2010 whereby he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for ten years along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for six months.

The case of the prosecution

2. The case of the Respondent, Narcotics Control Bureau (‘NCB’) is that a secret information was received by them that the Appellant would come from Chandigarh by bus on 5th December 2007 at around 5 am at the Inter State Bus Terminal (‘ISBT’), Kashmere Gate, Delhi with a huge quantity of heroin in order to deliver it to some Indian at the Exit gate of ISBT. On 5th December 2007, at 3:05 am, the Intelligence Officer (‘IO’), Manoj Kumar (PW-8) collected the seal of NCB, DZU-1 from the Superintendent and proceeded to the spot with his team comprising four more officers. At the spot, an independent witness, Rajiv Chauhan joined them. The informer was also present. The team took position near the Exit gate, Ring Road.

3. At around 5:15 am, the Appellant came out from the Exit gate and started waiting for someone. After 15-20 minutes, when the Appellant moved, the raiding party encircled him. The IO disclosed his identity and briefed the Appellant regarding his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. He proceeded to serve upon the Appellant a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The Appellant is stated to have declined to be searched before a gazetted officer. When the Appellant was searched, he was found to be carrying a rucksack bag in which there were two polythenes containing off-white powder which tested positive for heroin. The consignment weighed 4 kg. Two samples of 5 gm each were taken out from each polythene and marked as A and B and given mark A-1 to A-2 and B-1 to B-2. The samples were then sealed with the seal of NCB, DZU-1 using paper slips. The test memo in triplicate was prepared on which the seal impression was appended. A seizure memo was prepared by the IO on which the panch witness and the appellant also signed.

4. The Appellant was issued summons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. He is stated to have tendered his statement inculpating himself in the alleged recovery and trafficking of the contraband. The seized contraband was deposited with the malkhana and the seal was returned to the Superintendent. The Appellant was arrested. The samples A1 and B1 were sent to Central Revenue Control Laboratory (‘CRCL’) through Hawaldar Shiv Ratan (PW-2) along with the forwarding letter and the test memo. The CRCL found that the samples contained diacetylmorphine (‘DAM’) with the purity percentages of 57.1% and 61.4% respectively. The statement of the panch witness was recorded. After investigation, the complaint was filed against the Appellant. He was charged under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. Nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

5. In his statement under Section 313 Cr PC, the Appellant claimed that he had been falsely implicated; he had been picked up from his house and nothing was recovered from him.

The trial Court judgment

6. The learned trial Court in its impugned judgment concluded that there was substantive compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act. A perusal of the information noted down (PW-8/1) showed that a substantive part of it had been recorded which led to the recovery. On the question of tampering with the case property, although there was overwriting on the seal movement register, PW-9 had stated that the overwriting was made in the presence of PW-8. A perusal of the record showed that there was nothing to infer that the entry was tampered with. The time of issue of seal and return of seal was mentioned in t