IMPORTANT POINT
Mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act regarding search and seizure must be strictly followed; failure to do so can lead to acquittal due to reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

(Robin Phukan, J.)

Heard Ms. B. Sharma, learned amicus curie for the appellant and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. In this appeal, under Section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) the appellant, namely, Tarun Das has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 28.09.2018, passed by the learned Addl. Special Judge (NDPS), Tinsukia, in NDPS Case No. 14(T)/2016, arising out of Dhola P.S. Case No. 39/2016, under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.09.2018, the learned Addl. Special Judge (NDPS), Tinsukia, has convicted the appellant under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another six months.

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

“The members of Mahila Samitee of Dhola Bazar, on 05.07.16, at 3:30 PM, acting on a tip off, about keeping of psychotropic substance in the house of accused Tarun Das situated at Bormura Miripather, had surrounded his house and also informed the Dhola Police Station. After sometime the Dhola police arrived there and conducted search in the house of the accused and recovered and seized about 5 Kg of Bhang, the leaves and flower tops of cannabis, from his house, which were kept concealed in his house.

On receipt of an FIR from the Mahila Samitee the Officer-in-Charge Dholla P.S. registered a case, being Dholla P.S. Case No. 39/2016, under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act and endorsed Padma Gogoi to investigate the case. The I.O. then visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses, prepared sketch map and arrested the accused and forwarded him to the court. He also seized the psychotropic substances preparing seizure list and thereafter, drawn up samples and forwarded the same to the FSL. Thereafter, he had collected the report. Then on completion of the investigation, the I.O. had laid charge sheet against the accused namely, Tarun Das to stand trial in the court under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act.

Thereafter, on appearance of the appellant before the learned trial court, the court had complied with the provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, hearing learned Advocates of both sides had initially framed charge against the accused/appellant under Section 17(c) of the NDPS Act. But subsequently altered the charge to Section 20(a)(b) of the NDPS Act as under:-

(i) That, on 05.07.16 at about 3:30 P.M at Bormora Miripothar village under Dhola PS in the district of Tinsukia you had been found cultivating cannabis plant and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 20(a) of the NDPS Act?

(ii) That, on the same day, time and place you had been found producing, manufacturing, possessing 4.8 Kgs. of Ganja (cannabis) for selling, transporting, importing, inter-state, exporting, inter-State or uses cannabis and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 20(b) of the NDPS Act?

Thereafter, the learned trial court had read over and explained the charges to the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During trial, the prosecution side had examined as many as nine (9) witnesses. After closing the prosecution witnesses the learned trial court had examined the accused/appellant u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

Thereafter, hearing arguments of learned Advocates of both sides, the learned trial court held that the charge under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act was established against the accused/appellant and accordingly, convicted him and sentenced as aforesaid.

5. Being highly aggrieved, the accused/appellant had preferred this appeal through the Superintendent of Jail, Tinsukia District Jail. The accused/appellant, having not been represented by any counsel, Ms. Bijita Sharma is appointed as Amicus Curiae to repr