IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must comply with statutory provisions to establish the integrity of evidence; non-compliance raises reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellants who are accused no.1 and 2 in S.C.No.72/2011 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Vatakara, challenge the conviction entered and sentence passed against them for the offence punishable under Section 22(b)(ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 14/12/2010 while PW3, Circle Inspector of Police, Kannur Town was in his office, he received reliable information that persons travelling in a Honda Activa scooter bearing registration no.KL 13 T 6266 from Kakkad side to Kannur would be carrying/possessing narcotic drugs/psychotropic substances. Hence, he along with party proceeded to the place and apprehended the accused persons. The first accused was riding the scooter and the second accused was the pillion rider. They were intercepted at Kannur - Kakkad road after Palakkad Swamimadam road junction. On inspecting the bags in their possession, the first accused was found in possession of 2.090 kgs and the second accused, 1.040 kgs of ganja. As per the final report/charge sheet, the accused were alleged to have committed the offences punishable under 20(b)(ii) (B) read with Section 29 of the Act.

3. PW3, Circle Inspector, Kannur Town, the detecting officer, registered crime no.1164/2010, that is, Ext.P10 FIR. PW6, Circle Inspector, Kannur City, the investigating officer, on completion of investigation submitted the final report alleging the commission of the offence punishable under the aforementioned section by the accused persons.

4. On appearance of the accused persons, the trial court after complying with the formalities contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C., framed a charge under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the Act, which was framed, read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P15 and MO.1 to MO.4 were marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused persons denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence.

6. As the trial court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused persons under Section 232 Cr.P.C., they were asked to enter on their defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 and D2 were marked on behalf of the accused persons.

7. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment found the accused persons guilty of the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and hence sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each and to a fine of Rs. 75,000/- each and in default to rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been allowed. Aggrieved, the accused persons have 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 appellants/accused persons by the trial court are sustainable or not.

9. Heard both sides.

10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/accused persons that there has been violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act and hence the Per contra accused persons are entitled to be acquitted. , it was submitted by the learned public prosecutor that there has been sufficient compliance of the mandatory provisions and that the impugned judgment calls for no interference.

11. According to PW3, the detecting officer, when he received confidential information about the transit of the contraband, he had reduced the same into writing that is, Ext.P2 and forwarded the same to his superior officer. However, in Ext.P9 mahazar as well as in Ext.P10 FIR, it is sta