The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 50, Section 52-A, and Section 55 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and must be strictly complied with during search and seizure processes.

JUDGMENT

Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. - Heard the learned counsel Mr. M. Biswas, appearing for the appellants. Also heard, Mr. B.B. Gogoi, the learned Addl. P.P. for the State of Assam.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) in NDPS Case No. 50 of 2018 holding the appellants Chotan Roy @ Chotan Ray and Sashi Kumar guilty under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. On 02.03.2018 at about 6:30 a.m., ASI Dinesh Deka of Government Railway Police Station, Guwahati was checking the coaches of 14019 Down Tripura Sundari Express train, which was parked in the platform No. 1 of Guwahati Railway Station. The said police officer discovered that two passengers, namely Chotan Roy and Sashi Kumar had in their possession 4 bags contained 15 packets of suspected ganja wrapped in polythene. Both the aforesaid persons were brought down from the coach and the Officer In-charge of the Government Railway Police Station, Guwahati was informed. On getting the information the Officer Incharge entered the matter in General Diary vide Entry No. 30 dated 02.03.2018. He issued a letter of authority to Sub Inspector Girindra Nath Haloi to do the investigation. Mr. Haloi went to the Platform No. 1 and met the detained persons. Mr. Haloi searched bags of those two persons and also searched their bodies. Chotan Roy and Sashi Kumar disclosed before Mr. Haloi that out of the 15 packets, 8 packets belonged to him and the other 7 packets belonged to Sashi Kumar. Together they disclosed that they were carrying those packets of ganja for selling them in the market.

4. The packets were weighed and it was found that the packets altogether contain 30 kilograms of suspected ganja. Out of the entire quantity of suspected ganja, 24 gram samples were drawn from each packet. The appellants were arrested and the samples were sent to FSL for examination. The FSL reported positive for ganja and therefore the charge-sheet was filed.

5. On their appearance before the Trial Court, the charges under Section 20(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act were framed against the appellants.

6. The prosecution side examined 6 witnesses. The appellants did not adduce any evidence. On the basis of the evidence on record the Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 20(b) (ii) (C) and under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

7. The only point for determination in this appeal is as to whether the Trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence as well as the relevant law and arrived at a correct finding.

8. S.I. Girindra Nath Haloi is the first prosecution witness. His evidence-in-chief is in support of the prosecution story. During cross-examination Girindra Nath Haloi had stated before the defence counsel that the G.D. Entry (Ext.1) made by the Officer In-charge of the police station did not contain any note stating that the matter has been intimated to his superior officer in writing. Mr. Haloi further disclosed before the defence counsel that there are many shops and other establishments in the platform no. 1 but they did not agree to be witnesses to the seizure and therefore he had to take signatures of police personnel in the seizure list. The witness admitted that he did not prepare any separate inventory which is required under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.

9. The second witness is Subhash Chetry. He is a police constable and at the time of occurrence he had met ASI Dinesh Deka. His examination-in-chief is similar to that of Girindra Nath Haloi. He stood as a witness to the seizure of the suspected ganja. There is nothing material in the cross-examination portion of this witness.

10. The third prosecution witness is Subhash Singh. His evidence is similar to that of earlier witness Subhash Chetry. He was with ASI Dinesh Deka at the time of occurrence.

11. The fourth witness ASI Dinesh Deka. He has stated in his evidence that the appellants Chotan Roy and Sashi Kumar were travelling in the reserved compartment though they had