JUDGMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State/respondent No. 1.

2. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 22.01.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Udalguri in connection with NDPS Case No. 35/2018 convicting the appellants Swmkur Mochahary (A1 for short) and Munna Mochahary (A 2 for short) under Sections 20(b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act for short) and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with default stipulation.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. A. Ahmed laid stress in his argument that this case is replete with contradictions and procedural defects. The trial Court erred by convicting the appellants ignoring the contradictions and the procedural defects. It has been emphasized through the argument that the Investigating Agency did not follow the proper procedure as per Section 52(A) of the Act. It is submitted that the testimony of the witnesses are not consistent. PW-1 testified that three packets of cannabis weighing 60 kgs were recovered from the vehicle whereas, PW-10 testified that two bags of cannabis were recovered from the vehicle which was intercepted while transporting the contraband. It was argued that the S.I. Jatin Ch. Deka, the informant, (PW-1) acted dehors his jurisdiction because he lodged the FIR as S.I. of Udalguri P.S. but he was posted as I/C of Bhairabkunda O.P. at the time of lodgment of the FIR “Exhibit 1.”

4. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishan Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 1 SCC 222, Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539, Malber Khan and Another vs. State of Assam and Another in Crl. Appeal No. 41/2021 decided on 05.01.2023 and Union of India vs. Rooparam, MANU/SC/1817/2017.

5. Per contra , the learned Addl. P.P. Ms. S. Jahan submitted through her argument that the appellants were caught red-handed while transporting Ganja in the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-15-E-4572 of Santro Xing make. The argument in defence that the samples which were forwarded to the Directorate of Forensic Science (DFS for short) were not numbered for proper identification, does not hold water because the Malkhana number is recorded as MR No. 86/18 on the seizure list marked as Exhibit-6. This has been highlighted by the learned Additional P.P. through her argument stating that the investigation proceeded in the correct direction, and after the articles were seized by the appellants, the same was handed over to the OC of Udalguri P.S. It has however been admitted by the Additional P.P. that provisions engrafted in Section 52 and 57 of the Act are directly dependent on the facts of the case. It was also held in Gurbak Singh vs. State of Harayana, (2001) 3 SCC 28 that the police should normally follow the provisions engrafted in Sections 52 and 57 of the Act.

6. On the anvil of these submissions, we proceed to examine whether the conviction of the appellants can be sustained.

The question that falls for consideration in this case is that whether the trial Court erred in convicting the appellants under the aforementioned sections of law.

The trial Court delineated the following points while deciding this case:

“(i) Whether on 12-07-2018, at about 10 a.m. the police personnel of Sonai khawrang, police post found 60 kgs of ganja in the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-15-E-4572, under the possession of the accused persons during Naka checking in front of Sonai Khawrang Police Post?”

7. At the commencement of trial, the appellants abjured their guilt and claimed innocence to the charges framed against them. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 10 (ten) witnesses, who were cross-examined by the defence. The statement