The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborated evidence in establishing possession of contraband drugs and the threat of drug abuse to society.

The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 9.5.07 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in NDPS Case No. 3/05 whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced to RI for 15 years under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short NDPS) and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac in default RI for another 2 years.

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on receipt of a specific secret information, the officials of Customs and Preventive Force, Tezpur led by P.C. Sarma, Inspector of Customs intercepted a night-super bus bearing registration No. NL – 01-B/0611 coming from Dimapur towards Barpeta via Tezpur at about 23.00 hrs on 9.3.05, conducted a checking in the aforesaid bus. The officials in course of such checking, found three numbers of cartoons seemed to have contained biscuits under brand name and style “M/s Nezone Biscuit (P) Ltd. as the wrappers belonged to the said manufacturer. But due to exorbitant weight of the cartoons, raising doubt of foul play, those packets were examined. Then it was revealed that it contained contraband ganja in the shape of cake, being packed in place of real biscuits. On enquiry made by the officials, two of the passengers of the vehicle, namely, Sri Bishnu Singh and Subhash Shah claimed that the cartoons contains Nezone biscuits and aforesaid articles belonged to them. The said articles were weighed and seized which weighed about 102.300 kgs found in total number of 275 packets. The actual packets of biscuits numbering 150 were found. The sample was drawn from the seized ganja which was subsequently sent to the FSL which gave positive test of cannabis (ganja). On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against two accused persons, namely, Sri Bishnu Singh and Subhash Shah under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act for committing offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act.

3. Both the accused persons faced the trial and the learned Spl. Judge framed the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and it was explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many 9 witnesses in support of their case and defence examined none. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Spl. Judge by the impugned judgment and order has convicted both the accused persons as aforesaid and the present appellant Subhash Shah is one of the accused. The present appeal has been preferred by one of the accused/appellant as referred above.

4. By way of this appeal it has been contended that conviction is bad in law as the prosecution has not been able to prove that the seized articles were recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant. The violation of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act is another ground of challenge whereby it has been contended that the prosecution has not produced the source of information that has been received by them and which was reduced to writing nor higher authority was informed. Regarding seizure, it has been assailed that same was not prepared at the place of occurrence and no independent was examined at the time of seizure. Non-production of seized contraband drugs before the court is stated to be fatal. Further it has been contended that procedure of taking sample and making sealing etc. were not prepared as per procedure. Regarding the statement of the appellant produced by the prosecution, it is alleged that it was not voluntarily, so the reliance placed by the learned court while convicting the accused is bad in law.

5. For all the grounds above, it has been prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and order.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant confined to the grounds of appeal that have been incorporated in the Appeal Memo. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the appellant has