IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with statutory provisions, the veracity of evidence, and the benefit of doubt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the appellant. And also heard Mr. S.C. Kayel, learned Standing Counsel, Central Excise & Custom.

2. This appeal is preferred by appellant, namely, Shri Thangjam Thoiba Singh, challenging the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order, dated 31.07.2018, passed in NDPS Case No.06/2015, under sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned judgment and order, the learned Court below has convicted the appellant, u/s 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- only, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1(one) year.

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are adumbrated herein below:-

“Acting on a tip off on 31.5.15, at about 11 am, Custom Officials, at Jugang Hill road had intercepted the Truck bearing registration No.MN-04A-4836, which was coming from Jiribam side towards Silchar and on checking the Truck the Custom Officer had found al total 113 packets of Ganja (Cannabis) weighing 1814.9 Kg (net) of worth Rs.90,74,500/- in compressed form, wrapped with newspaper and polythene sheets stacked inside a cavity of the said Truck, which was driven by Sri Thangjam Thoiba Singh, and seized the same by preparing seizure list.

Thereafter, the Departmental Case No.02/CL/NDPS/PREV./SIL/2015-16, dated 31.5.15, was registered, u/s 20(b)(ii)(c) r/w section 23 & 25 of the NDPS Act and carried out investigation and on completion of the same offence report was submitted against the appellant, u/s 20(b)(ii)(c), read with section 23 & 25 of the NDPS Act, before the learned court below.

Thereafter, the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Cachar, Silchar had framed charges against the appellant, after hearing learned Advocates of both sides, under sections u/s 20(b)(ii)(c) NDPS Act and on being read and explained over the same to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the learned Court below had examined as many as 05 witnesses, including the I.O. and thereafter, hearing argument of both sides, found that the prosecution side has succeeded in establishing the case against the appellant, under sections 20(b)(ii)(c) NDPS Act and thereafter, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.”

4. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal and also another appeal from the Central Jail, Silchar on the following grounds:-

(i) That, the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and came to a perverse finding;

(ii) That, the learned court has failed to appreciate the fact that the prosecution side did not comply with section 42/52/55/57 of the NDPS Act;

(iii) That, the learned court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the FSL expert was not examined to prove the report;

(iv) That, the Malkhana Register was not produced and proved before the court to establish that the contraband substances were kept in proper custody before sending samples to FSL;

(v) That the learned court below has committed grave error in fact and law in passing the impugned judgment and order.

5. Mr. L.R. Mazumder, the learned counsel for the appellant, besides reiterating the points mentioned in the memo of appeal and as discussed herein above, submits that P.W. 1 and 2 are not believable as they are ready made witness for the prosecution in many cases. Mr. Mazumder also submits that there is no evidence to show that the contraband substances were kept in safe custody in Malkhana before sending the same to FSL and that the expert, who had submitted the report, has also not been examined by the prosecution side and the report has not been duly proved. Another contention so made by Mr. Mazumder is that incriminating circumstances that were appearing from the evidence on the record have not been put to the appellant during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, Mr. Mazumder submits that the