Compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act is necessary, but substantial evidence can uphold convictions despite procedural lapses.

JUDGMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. H. Barbhuiya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. This is an appeal challenging the Judgment And Order dated 19.07.2018, in connection with NDPS Case No. 62 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the appellant was convicted under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with default stipulation.

3. Also heard learned Standing Counsel Mr S C Keyal, representing the NCB.

4. The genesis of the case was that on 28.01.2017, at about 07:00 am, an information was received from a reliable source that one oil tanker bearing registration No. MN06-T-0336, was approaching from Manipur with a consignment of ganja. This tanker was expected to reach near ISBT Petrol Pump at Guwahati, at around 09:00 am on the same day. This information was reduced into writing by Sri Lhunkholal and was submitted to the Zonal Director of NCB. The entire investigating team as constituted, reached the spot at about 09:00 am, and requested two persons, namely, Ishraful Haque and Md Dilabar, to be witness to seizure of contraband. The investigation team found a tanker parked by the roadside of Birdaimalu Road near ISBT and saw the appellant on the driver's seat. After following proper procedure, the cabin of the tanker was searched and the tanker lids were unlocked in presence of witnesses and a total of 139 packets wrapped in newspaper, and then covered with transparent polythene paper were recovered from the space inside the tank of the tankers.

5. The packets were opened and dried flowering tops of cannabis/ganja were found and tested by the team. The total weight of the ganja recovered from the tanker was around 1490.08 kilograms. Samples were drawn as per proper procedure and endorsed by the learned CJM, Kamrup, and forwarded to the Directorate of Forensic Science, Kahilipara (DFS, for short). After complying with the required provisions of the NDPS Act, Irungbam Anil Meetei (hereinafter also referred to as the accused or the appellant) was arrested as a case under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, was registered against him.

6. Investigation commenced and the final complaint was lodged against the appellant. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act was framed and read over and explained to the appellant, who abjured his guilt and claimed innocence. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 6 (six) witnesses and exhibited 28 (twenty-eight) documents. On closure of prosecution evidence, several questions were asked to the appellant on the circumstances arising against him. The answers of the appellant, as per Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’ for short), transpires a plea of total denial. The appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant laid stress in his argument that the cross- examination of PW-3, the key witness, clearly reveals the perfunctory manner in which the search and seizure was conducted and the appellant was taken into custody.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the independent witnesses