The substantial quantity of contraband recovered can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, even in the face of the accused's denial of the prosecution's case.

1. In this appeal, appellant challenges impugned judgment of 21st January 2012 vide which he has been held guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “NDPS Act”) as he was found in illegal possession of 32.560 kgs. of Ganja. Vide impugned order on sentence of even date, appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, trial court has directed that appellant shall serve sentence of rigorous imprisonment for nine months. The factual background of this case, as noted in the impugned judgment is as under:-

"It is the case of prosecution that on 03.04.2010 Inspector Narender Tyagi posted at PS Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station was on patrolling duty vide DD no.12-A. At about 3.20 pm, he reached Cumsome Restaurant, where Ct. Alok Kumar met him. Thereafter, they both reached DFMD Gate, Cumsome Restaurant side and started checking the passengers on its left side. It is case of the prosecution that at about 3.40 p.m. Raj Kumar was found coming from the side of platform no.2-3 towards DFMD gate. He was wearing black pant and grey t-shirt and carrying one brief-case having in his right hand, another brief-case in his left hand and one black thaila on his left shoulder. At that time Ct. Alok Kumar observed that one person behind Raj Kumar moved fast through DFMD Gate and lost in the crowd. Raj Kumar accused was stopped for his checking and asked to produce keys of the brief-cases. It is also case of the prosecution that when the brief-case of black cover was checked, it was found to contain two packets. On smelling those packets were found containing Ganja. The other brief-case of green colour cover was checked. It was also found containing two packets wrapped in newspaper. Their contents were Ganja. The thaila, which Raj Kumar was carrying, was found to contain clothes. Inspector Narender Tyagi recorded information and sent Ct. Alok Kumar to hand over the same to the SHO. The constable was also instructed to bring IO kit at the spot. The Inspector requested 4-5 passengers to join the investigation, but none accepted. A notice under section 50 of the Act was given to Raj Kumar, but he refused to avail the offer. His refusal was recorded. Nothing more was recovered on his search."

2. In this case of chance recovery, the crux of evidence led is tabulated by trial court in paragraph No.5 of the judgment. Suffice to note that the patrolling team was headed by Inspector Narender Tyagi (PW-10). The precise stand of appellant before trial court as reproduced in the impugned judgment is as under:-

"On that date of incident I had come to Delhi from Jamshedpur for work. I was apprehended by the police outside railway station and not on the platform. I was only carrying one shoulder bag which contained my clothes. There was no briefcase in my possession. Neither any Ganja was recovered from my possession. No senior police officer came. I was straight away taken to the police station from the spot."

3. Trial court, while discarding the aforesaid noted stand of appellant and by relying upon the prosecution evidence, has convicted and sentenced the appellant as noted here-in-above.

4. Appellant is present in Court in pursuance to Production Warrant issued against him.

5. The challenge to impugned conviction and sentence awarded to appellant by learned counsel for appellant is on the ground that the case property of this case has been tampered with. To submit so, it is pointed out by appellant's counsel that Inspector Preet Singh (PW-1) as well as Ct. Alok Kumar (PW-4) reached the police station at the same time and the sample seals were handed over to Ct. Alok Kumar (PW-4) by Inspector Narender Tyagi (PW-10) after sealing the case property and the samples. So it is submitted that the possibility of tampering of the case property/samples cannot be ruled out.

6. It is