The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the acceptance of evidence of police personnel, and the consequences of non-compliance with the safeguards provided.

1. - The appellant Ravi Prasad filed this Jail appeal against the judgment dated January 13, 2005 of Special Judge Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2004 convicting and sentencing the accused appellant under section under section 8/20 of NDPS Act for 7 years RI with fine of Rs. 75,000 in default of payment of fine to suffer six months RI.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on March 30, 2004 at 5.00 p.m. one informer informed the SHO Raghuveer Singh, Police Station Sindhi Camp that one person of aged 25 years having one black colour Bag having marked "Splender" on it having charas waiting for customers on Platform No.2 at Kota Booking counter. Upon this information the SHO sent information under section 42 of the NDPS Act to the higher authorities through special messenger Virendra Singh. For bringing independent witnesses Ramchandra, Constable was given notice and asked to arrange two independent witnesses at Plat Form No.2 of Kota Bookings counter. The SHO, with ASI Vidhyadhyar, HC Kalyan Singh, Constable Sagarmal, and constable Dhoodsingh with investigation box reached at 5.30 p.m. on Plat form No.2 near Kota Bookings counter where constable Ramchandra with two independnet witnesses Budharam and Ramesh were found. The SHO informed the independent witnesses for action and they agreed for independent witnesses. Thereafter the SHO with independent witnesses as per the informer's report chased the boy as per the identification, over which he started running. He was having black colour bag with him. SHO gave his identity to him and asked for searching him under section 50 of the NDPS Act. It was also stated to him that he has a right to be searched in presence of Gazetted officer or Judicial Magistrate over which he replied that he is ready to be searched from SHO himself. One copy of information under section 50 was also given to the suspect. Upon this the suspect gave bag to the SHO and stated that it contained Charas. Farad consent was prepared and thereafter search was made and from bag in the polythene convered with bed sheet black colour material was recovered which on weighing found 976 Gms. Two samples of 10 gms each were taken from the material and sealed in the presence of the two independent witnesses and remaining charas was also sealed in separate Hand bag. Accused was informed about his guilt and arrested. After arrest the accused was taken to police station and investigation was started. The sealed samples were sent to the FSL and after completion of investigation, the police filed challan before the trial court. The trial court after hearing the accused framed charge under section 8/20 of the NDPS Act against him. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In support of its case the prosecution examined Ramkaran, PW.1, Sagarmal, PW. 2, Virendra Singh, PW.3, Budharam, PW.4, Ramchandra, PW.5, Vidhyadhar PW.6, Kalyan Singh, PW.7, Vidhyaprakash PW.8, and Raghuveer Singh PW.9. The accused appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and he did not produce any evidence in defence. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment and order dated January 13, 2005 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated above.

3. Miss Ashish Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant placed reliance on Prema alias Prem Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2007 Cr.L.J. 4638) wherein this Court reduced the sentence of accused from 10 years RI to sentence already undergone by the accused, which was 7 years in that case. Fine of Rs. 1,00,000 was reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. In that case 35 Kgs. Of Poppy Straw was recovered from the vehicle of accused. The learned counsel argued only for reducing the sentence of the accused appellant and does not press for arguments on merit.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the judgment of conviction and argued that Narcotic Substance was recovered from the accused appel