1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 4.1.2008 passed by Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar in NDPS Case No. 2 of 2004 convicting the appellants herein of offence under section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances ('the NDPS Act') and sentencing them to R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default, R.I. for another 6 months for the offence aforementioned.

2. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred these appeals citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge. For convenience of discussion, the appellants would be referred to as accused persons.

3. Since both these appeals originated from the same judgment, I propose to dispose of both the appeals by this common judgment and order.

4. The facts projected by the prosecution in NDPS Case No. 2 of 2004, in short, are that on 7.1.2004 one Anil Choudhury, S.I. of Police of Jaypur Police Outpost while he was on petrol duty intercepted a Sumo vehicle with registration No. AS-II-B-1194 at Korongo Part-I and recovered some gunny bags containing articles, suspected to be ganja, weighing approximately 117 kg.

5. The said article, suspected to be ganja, was seized in presence of witnesses and samples were taken therefrom in accordance with the procedures, prescribed under the law and in due course, such samples were sent to FSL, Guwahati for necessary examination. In due course, the opinion of expert, rendered in respect of samples aforesaid, was received. The expert who conducted examination on those samples opined that samples, so sent to him, gave positive test for cannabis.

6. On receipt of the aforesaid report, Sri Choudhury, S.I. of Police, submitted charge sheet under section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act against Sri Devendra Sangha and Md. Sonab Ali Laskar and sent them to the court to stand trial. The learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar furnished the copies of police report and other connected documents to the accused persons and on hearing the parties, framed charge under section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.

7. The charge, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, prosecution had examined as many as 8 witnesses including the I.O., Sri Anil Choudhury (PW1). The statements of accused persons were recorded under section 313, Cr.PC. The plea of the accused persons was of total denial. They, however, declined to adduce any evidence.

8. Oil conclusion of trial and on hearing the arguments, advanced by the parties, learned Spl. Judge, Cachar, Silchar, convicted both the appellants of offence under section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced them to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been challenged in the present appeals.

9. Opening up the argument on behalf of appellant in Crl. Appeal No.18 of 2008, Sri B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel submits that the judgment under challenge needs to be set aside since the empowered officer while taking action under the NDPS Act had grossly violated the provision of section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. Such violations of the aforesaid provisions of law vitiate the entire trial against the appellants and it in turn makes the judgment under challenge unsustainable.

10. In that connection, it has been pointed out that on the fateful day, the empowered officer got the secret information about illegal movement of psychotropic substances and such information was received by him while he was still in the police Outpost and as such, he was duty bound to reduce such information into writing and to send a copy thereof to his immediate superior officer before taking further action against the alleged offenders under the Act.

11. In the present case, the empowered officer, however, without complying with the direction rendered in section 42 of the NDPS Act, chose to proceed to the road through which the contraband articles were anticipated to be carried. According to Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document