IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish a prima facie case and prove the chain of custody for contraband under the NDPS Act; failure to do so undermines the conviction.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the Judgment dated 22.07.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, Bijni, Chirang, in Special (N) Case No. 19(B)/2022. The appellant was convicted under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) years and 6 (six) months, as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only. In default of payment, the appellant is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 60 (sixty) days.

3. The prosecution story in brief is as follows:

3.1. On 24.09.2022, SI Sri Kumud Chandara Talukdar lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Bijni Police Station, alleging that on the same day at about 4 P.M, he received information from the SDPO, Bijni, that two persons would travel from Panbari towards No. 1 Agrang via Panbari road to sell Ganja using two motorcycles. The SDPO, Bijni, directed him to conduct Naka checking at No. 1 Agrang near Ananda Bazar. Subsequently, he, along with five other police personnel, went to Ananda Bazar and arrived there at about 5:30 PM. During the check, they noticed two individuals approaching from the Bishnupur side on two motorcycles, each carrying plastic gunny bags. When they signaled for the individuals to stop, one of them managed to flee, taking advantage of the darkness, leaving behind his motorcycle and gunny bag. They apprehended Rajkumar Mandal (the present appellant). In the presence of witnesses, two motorcycles and two white gunny bags were recovered. One gunny bag contained four plastic packets weighing about 19 kg 961 grams, while the other contained four plastic packets totaling 20 kg 475 grams. The FIR was registered as Bijni P.S. Case No. 161/2022. In light of the FIR, the accused/appellant was arrested on 25.09.2022 and has been in jail since then. The charge-sheet in this case was submitted on 30.11.2022, and charges under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (C)/29 were framed, putting the accused on trial. To support the case, the prosecution examined 10 (ten) witnesses, including four independent witnesses and five official witnesses. During the trial, the prosecution exhibited 13 (thirteen) documents. The accused/appellant denied the allegations in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleading his innocence.

3.2. After hearing the arguments from both sides, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment dated 22.07.2024 in connection with Special (N) Case No. 19(B)/2022, convicting the appellant under Sections 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and 6 (six) months, and imposing a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand), with a default sentence of 60 (sixty) days of rigorous imprisonment.

4. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, Bijni, Chirang, in Special (N) Case No. 19(B)/2022, the present appellant has preferred this appeal with a prayer for setting aside and quashing the impugned Judgment dated 22.07.2024.

5. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment mechanically, without proper application of mind, making the impugned order liable to be set aside. He submits that the learned court below erred in law and fact, warranting the impugned judgment’s overturning. Furthermore, he contended that the learned Trial Court made a jurisprudential error in assessing the prosecution's evidence and overlooked the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, making this a suitable case for this Hon'ble Court to set aside the conviction and release the appellant.

6. The prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody for the contraband alleged to have been seized.