The reliability of evidence, witness testimonies, and adherence to legal procedures under the NDPS Act were central to the court's decision.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been instituted under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 03.09.2011 and order on sentence dated 20.09.2011 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 (here in after referred to as ‘NDPS’). The present appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with fine of Rs. One lakh, in default thereof further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

2. The case of the prosecution, as observed by the Special Judge, NDPS is as under:

“2. The case of the prosecution is that secret information was received by ASI Paramjeet Singh to the effect that one person namely Sikander would come under foot over bridge, ISBT to sell charas and on this basis the raiding party was constituted consisting of, ASI Paramjeet Singh, HC Sanjeev and HC Mahesh. Prior to this, secret informer was produced before Inspector M.L. Sharma who in turn informed to ACP and instructions for raid were obtained. The secret information was reduced into writing and was transmitted to the seniors u/s 42 NDPS Act. The raiding party left the police station in Gypsy No. DL1CJ-3481 vide DD no. 5 and proceeded to the spot. On the way, they requested some passers-by to join the proceedings but no one came forward. Police party even after reaching at the iron bridge, requested public to join but they declined. The raiding party took positions and at about 8.20 a.m., one boy was seen coming from Mori Gate having one black color bag on his left shoulder. The secret informer pointed out towards him, who was accused, Sikander and was apprehended. The secret information was shared with the accused and introduction of raiding party was given. Notice u/s 50 NDPS Act was served upon the accused which he refused vide his reply. Thereafter on search, the bag of the accused was found containing black color material which was found charas on field testing kit. On weighing, the same came out to be 1 Kg 50 grams and out of the same, two samples of 50 grams each were taken out. The main charas as well as samples were sealed and seized and FSL form was filled up. The FIR was registered and accused was arrested. After completion of investigation and other proceedings, charge-sheet was filed against the accused.

iii. On 14.01.2010, as amended on 01.09.2011, the charge against the accused was framed for the offence punishable u/s 20(b) (ii) (C) NDPS Act 1985, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.”

3. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses, in all. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the appellant denied all allegations and asserted that on 20.12.2008 he was lifted by ASI Paramjeet on the behest of the police informer Zakir, but the colony people got him released from the police party and in the said process, one Jagdish sustained head injuries. He further stated that on 04.07.2009, he had come for the check up of his niece to St. Stephen hospital but was lifted by ASI Paramjeet Singh and falsely implicated in the case. To prove his innocence, he had examined six witnesses.

4. On appreciation of the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the learned Special Judge found that the recovery of 1 Kg 50 Gms of Charas from the appellant was fully established and thus, held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable u/s 20(b) (ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and convicted him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with fine.

5. Ms. Saahila Lamba, learned counsel for the appellant contended that no sincere efforts were made by the raiding party to join independent witnesses which vitiates the entire case of the prosecution; that the ra