Non-compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A, can lead to the exclusion of seized contraband as valid evidence in trial.

2. Both the accused appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in NDPS Case No. 62/2015 (arising out of Custom Case No. 01/CL/NARC/AS/GAU/2015-16) whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 20(C) read with Section 29 of NDPS Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months each.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the Inspector of Custom, Guwahati lodged a complaint stating inter alia that on 15.06.2015 they received an information that a twelve wheeler truck bearing No.UP-65-CT/0717 loaded with ganja proceeded outside the State through Baihata Chariali area on 16.06.2015 and accordingly the vehicle was intercepted with the help of other officials near Baihata Chariali police point. Two persons were found inside the truck, the driver introduced himself as one of the appellant Vikky Pachouri and another appellant Anand Patel introduced as helper of the driver. On being asked, they informed that they were transporting a consignment of coal from Guwahati to Kharioni, Uttar Pradesh. On further inquiry, both the persons confessed that in fact they proceeded to Routa for unloading ganja which was concealed under the consignment of coal and thereafter, the vehicle was taken to Customs office at Christian Basti, Guwahati for recovery of ganja. After removing the tarpolin cover from the truck, eight packets packed with HDPE materials found dry plant materials believed to be ganja which were weighing about 213 kg. Then the said suspected ganja was seized and the case was registered accordingly and the two appellants were arrested. After receipt of the report from the FSL, charge-sheet was submitted against both the appellants under Section 20(C)/29 of NDPS Act.

4. During trial, charge was framed under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act against both the accused appellants which was read over and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the case, prosecution has examined twelve witnesses and exhibited some documents. After closure of the trial, the statements of the accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to which they denied their involvement in the case and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. After hearing the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the trial court has convicted the appellants as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and they have been detained in custody for about nine years. There is gross violation of Section 52 and Section 52A of NDPS Act. As per evidence of PW 11 and PW 12, the inventory was not prepared which is mandatory as per provision of law.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that as per Section 52A(2) of NDPS Act as and when any narcotic drug or substance has been seized and forwarded to the officer in charge of the nearest police station, as per provision of Sub Section (2), he shall prepare an inventory of such narcotic drug or substance containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, way of packing, marked, number or such other identifying particulars of such substance and make an application to the Magistrate for the purpose of certifying correctness of the inventory so prepared or taking photographs in presence of the Magistrate or allowing to draw a reprehensive sample of such drug or substance in presence of the Magistrate.

7. According to learned counsel for the appellant, PW-11 and PW 12 both the witnesses have nowhere st