The court emphasized the importance of informing the accused of incriminating circumstances during examination under Section 313 of the CrPC and upheld the accused's substantial rights in the context of the public analyst's report.

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.-Accused appellants Keshav Prasad son of Mangal Singh and Indra Prakash @ Prakash son of Moharpal have preferred this appeal before this Court under Section 374 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, CrPC), challenging their conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg, District Bharatpur, in Sessions Case No. 4/2000, whereby the accused appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 8/20 and 8/28 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

2. PW.2 Vijay Singh Meena, Superintendent, Central Narcotics, received an information from the informer that keshav prasad and Indra Prakash @ Prakash are doing business of charas and they will deliver four kilogram charas on 28 or 211.1999 to one trader in Jurahara. If a raid is conducted then the said charas can be recovered from them. The said information was reduced in writing by him (Exhibit P-3) on 211.1999 at 10.00 AM. He forwarded the said information to the DNC (Unit), Kota. Thereafter he constituted a team to do the needful on the specific date, time and place. Shri Laxman Kataria, Sub Inspector, one of the members of the team saw the scooter No. DL 5 SJ/7877 on 211.1999 at about 3.00 PM. Thereafter he gave a notice to Keshav Prasad as well as Prakash under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 apprising them about their right to get their search in presence of either Magistrate or an independent Gazetted officer. Both the persons agreed by writing in their own handwriting in the carbon copy of the notice that they are prepared to get themselves searched by Sub Inspector Mr. Laxman Kataria, itself . PW-6 Laxman Kataria made a search from the scooter rider Keshav Prasad and Prakash, who was sitting on the back seat of the scooter alongwith Keshav Prasad. Total six packets were recovered from the custody of accused Indra Prakash @ Prakash. The net weight of charas was found to be 4.00 kg. Two samples of 25 gram each were taken and sealed and remaining 3.950 kg. Charas was sealed seoparately. The statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act., 1985 twice before and after their arrest. The samples were sent for chemical examination. The Assistant Chemical Examiner, Government Opium Factory Lab., Neemach, vide his report dated 212.1999 reported that the sample is found by qualitative analysis to be charas within the meaning of NDPS Act, 1985.

3. The prosecution filed criminal complaint in the trial Court under Sections 8/20, 8/28 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The trial Court framed charge against both the accused appellants under Sections 8/20 and 8/28 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

4. In support of the case of the prosecution examined eight witnesses and produced documentary evidence Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-46. Thereafter statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313, CrPC, the learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the same the present appeal has been filed before this Court.

5. The learned Counsel for the accused appellants, Mr. Shital Das, contended that the learned trial Court committed a serious illegality in convicting the accused appellants for the above offences whereas in the present case there was violation of mandatory-provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985. He contended that the information reduced in writing as per Section 42 of the NDPS Act (Exhibit P-3) was not original and could not have been red in evidence. The said information was not sent to superior officer by Shri V.S. Meena, who recorded it, therefore the compliance of Sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 was not made and the same is fatal to the prosecution case. He also referred to the notices given to accused under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 1985 (Exhibit P-4 and Exhibit P-5) and contended that these notic