The reliability and trustworthiness of police officers' testimony should be evaluated based on the quality of evidence, not solely on the presumption of distrust.

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The appellant–Ekram Ansari impugns a judgment dated 12.08.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 25A/10 arising out of FIR No. 302/10 at Police Station Govind Puri by which he was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act'). By an order dated 17.08.2013, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years with fine Rs.1,00,000/-; default sentence being Simple Imprisonment for three months.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case in nutshell, was that on 05.09.2010 at around 04.45 P.M an information was received by SI Balbir Singh, while he was on patrolling duty along with HC Ram Kishore and Ct. Ramkesh. It was intimated that an individual involved in supply of Charas would be coming from the side of petrol pump, Baba Fateh Singh Marg would go towards slum quarters DDA, Kalkaji. The information was reduced in writing vide DD No. 17A. The information was communicated by SI Balbir Singh to his senior officers and he was directed to conduct the raid. SI Balbir Singh constituted a raid team and reached the spot at about 04.15 P.M. Some public persons were requested to join the proceedings but they declined. At 4:45 P.M, the appellant was seen coming from the side of Maa Anandmai Marg. On the pointing out of the secret informer, the appellant was apprehended and was informed of his legal right. Notice (Ex.PW-2/D) under Section 50 NDPS Act served upon him. The appellant was carrying a black colour cloth bag on his left shoulder. Upon search, he was found in possession of 4 kgs of charas without licence or permit. Two samples of 100 grams each were taken out. FSL form and seizure memo was prepared. Rukka (Ex.PW-4/A) was prepared and FIR was lodged. Subsequent investigation was taken over by PW-8 (ASI Hari Ram). The appellant was arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for commission of offence under Section 20 of NDPS Act. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.

4. Appellant’s Counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. Mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 were not complied. Delay of 17 days in sending the sealed samples to FSL has remained unexplained. The prosecution did not explain as to how the quantity received by FSL was below 100 gms. The Counsel further urged that the statements of police officials in the absence of independent public witness cannot be given prominence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that all the mandatory provisions were complied with. Since the recovery was effected from the handbag, issuance of notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was not mandatory.

5. Material testimony to infer the appellant’s guilt is that of PW-4 (SI Balbir Singh). He deposed that on 05.09.2010, he along with HC Ram Kishore (PW-2) and Ct. Ramkesh (PW-6) were on patrolling at Baba Fateh Singh Marg, Govindpuri. At about 04.00 P.M, a secrete informer informed him that a person would come from the side of Maa Anandmai Marg to go towards DDA Flats, Kalkaji at about 04.45 P.M and he was in possession of ‘Charas’. The information was conveyed by him to Duty Officer, SHO and ACP on telephone and they directed him to conduct the raid. He further informed that after constituting raiding team, 4/5 passers-by were asked to join the proceedings but they declined to do so. At about 04.45