IMPORTANT POINT
The conviction was quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures for evidence collection under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jaipur Metro-I in Sessions Case (NDPS Case) No.14/2022 and sentenced to undergo ten years’ RI with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was sentenced to one year’s additional rigorous imprisonment.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor, instead of suspension of sentence application, the instant appeal is heard finally. Accordingly, the suspension of sentence application is disposed of.

3. The appellant herein has preferred the instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. challenging her conviction and sentence, as mentioned above.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.04.2021, Shri Devendra Kumar, Inspector Police Station Sanjay Circle lodged a report inter alia alleging that in the night of 20.04.2021, he along with other police staff were on patrolling duty. At 11:37 PM, he along with other police staff left the police station. At about 3:15 AM, when they reached in front of police line, Station Road, they saw two women, who on seeing the police party, tried to hide themselves. The police party went to them and asked as to why they were trying to hide themselves to which, they became nervous and failed to give any satisfactory reply. On apprehension that the women might have some objectionable material with them and their personal search seemed to be necessary, notice was issued to Ct. Mukesh Kumar for bringing two independent witnesses for the purpose of conducting their personal search. Ct. Mukesh returned to the spot and told that nobody was ready to become independent witness of the proceedings. Upon interrogation, they disclosed their names to be Sunita, appellant herein and Khemu. Both were apprised with their legal rights regarding personal search. As per the prosecution case, during personal search of the appellant, one bag was recovered from the possession of the appellant in which, dark brownish substance, kept in polythene was recovered. Upon smelling and inspecting the substance and on the basis of past experience, the same was found to be Charas. On asking, the appellant failed to produce any license or permit for the same. The contraband charas was weighed on electronic machine. The net weight of the recovered contraband was 1.251 grams. Two samples (Mark ‘A’ and Mark ‘B’) of 100 grams each were taken out of the recovery contraband and remaining contraband was again kept in the same polythene and thereafter it was sealed and stamped. Similarly, during search of accused Khimu, contraband Charas weighing 750.2 grams was recovered from the bag, recovered from her possession. Two samples (Mark ‘D’ and Mark ‘E’) were taken out from the recovered contraband and remaining contraband was kept in the same polythene and thereafter, it was sealed and stamped. Both the accused persons were thereafter arrested in connection with the aforesaid recovery. The police team, thereafter, conducted usual investigation and returned to police station.

5. In connection with the aforesaid recovery, FIR No.93/2020 was registered at Police Station Sanjay Circle, Jaipur for offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed chargesheet for offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act against the accused appellant Sunita and for offence under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act and Section 419 IPC against the accused Khimu @ Shyam Kumari. On 21.02.2022, charge for offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act was framed against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 80 documents.

6. The accused appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which, she denied the prosecution evidence and stated that she had been f