Point of Law: It is an archaic notion that actions of police officer should be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing at least initial trust on actions and documents made by police. At any rate, Court cannot start with presumption that police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law presumption should be other way around. That official acts of police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by legislature.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. (NDPS) No.25/2013 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for NDPS Act cases, Thodupuzha. This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the Special Court for the offences punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for brevity ‘NDPS Act’)

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 4.7.2012 at 5.30 p.m. near Holly Cross Church at Thellakam, the appellant was found in illegal possession of 48 ampules of Buprenorphine and a disposable syringe. Immediately he was arrested and Crime No.882/2012 was registered by Sub-Inspector of Police, Ettumanoor. After completion of investigation, the Circle Inspector of Police, Ettumanoor, submitted charge sheet before the Special Court.

3. In support of the prosecution case, PW1 to PW6 were examined, Exhibits P1 to P12 were marked and MO1 to MO8 were identified. After closure of the prosecution case, the incriminating materials revealed during the course of trial were put to the appellant who denied the same and contended that he is innocent of all allegations.

4. After the trial, upon appreciation of materials available on record, the Sessions Court found the appellant guilty of the offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years.

5. This appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence.

6. Heard Advocate Sri. Saiby Jose Kidangoor, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Aravind V. Mathew, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

7. The main contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution failed to establish the compliance of mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act. In view of the non-compliance of the above stipulation contained under Section 50(1) of NDPS Act, the search and seizure at the instance of PW5 is vitiated and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgments in Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat [AIR 2011 SC 77], Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [(2013)2 SCC 67], Syed Ali v. State of Kerala [MANU/KE/0185/2020] and Shihab v. S.I. of Police, Kottakkal and Another [2021(2)KLD 588].

8. In this case, for considering the above issue, the relevant materials required to be considered are Ext.P4 seizure mahazar and the evidence of PW4 and PW5. PW5 is the detecting officer/Sub Inspector of Police, Ettumannor, who deposed as follows: On 4.7.2012 at 5 p.m., he got reliable information that a person wearing blue jeans and black shirt was selling drugs near Kurizupally at Thellakam. Upon getting the said information, the same was reduced into writing in the general diary and the copy of such entry was forwarded to the superior officer. Thereafter he along with police party went to the spot and found that the person with the above description was standing on the spot. The police party intercepted him and informed about their suspicion regarding the possession of drugs. He also informed the appellant as to his right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer to which the appellant opted to have his body searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, Excise Inspector, Kottayam was called for by PW5. He came to the spot at 6.15 p.m. The body search of the accused was conducted in the presence of PW4 during the course of which, from the socks worn by the accused, certain plastic covers containing the contraband articles were found. The aforesaid articles were seized and samples of the same were collected by separately packing and those were sealed. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and the articles and the records were brought to the police station and the