Procedural non-compliance in narcotics cases can lead to acquittal if it undermines the prosecution's evidence and fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. the appellant, the sole accused in S.C.No.84/2012 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Vatakara, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 09/09/2010 at 05:30 a.m., the accused was found in possession of 478 ampules of Diazepam injection Starlium, 441 ampules of Buprenorphine Injection IP Lupigesic and 42 ampules of Phenergan Hydrochloride injection. Hence, the accused as per the final report/charge sheet is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 22(b) of the Act.

3. Crime no.580/2010, Kalpetta police station, that is, Ext.P5 FIR, was registered by PW1, the then Sub Inspector. The investigation was conducted by PW5, the Circle Inspector, Kalpetta, who on completion of the investigation submitted the final report alleging the commission of the offence punishable under the aforementioned Section by the accused.

4. When the accused appeared before the trial court, a charge under Section 22(c) of the Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P17 and MO.1 to MO.16 were marked in support of the case. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence.

6. As the trial court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.

7. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the Act and hence convicted him under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and to a fine of ₹1 lakh and in default, to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been allowed. Aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal.

8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed against the accused/ appellant by the trial court are sustainable or not.

9. Heard both sides.

10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that there has been a total lack of compliance of Section 52A of the Act. The remaining evidence on record is also not satisfactory to find the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. There is considerable delay in the contraband articles reaching the court. Hence the accused/appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and to be Per contra acquitted. , it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the materials on record are sufficient to find the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him.

11. I would make a brief reference to the oral and documentary evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of the case. PW1, the Sub Inspector, Kalpetta police station, deposed that on 09/09/2010 at 01:10 hours he received information that a person named Sajir wearing a green