IMPORTANT POINT
The conviction under the NDPS Act was quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures for sample collection, emphasizing the importance of due process in narcotics cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants herein have been convicted for offence under Section 8/20 (b) (ii) C of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 05.08.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Kota in Sessions Case No.27/2020 and sentenced them to undergo 14 years’ RI with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo three year’s additional rigorous imprisonment.

2. The appellants herein have preferred these two separate criminal appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. challenging their conviction and sentence, as mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he wants to argue the appeal finally. Learned Public Prosecutor is also ready to argue the matter finally. Thus, the appeal is heard finally. The application for suspension of sentence is therefore, disposed of.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.12.2019, a Preventive Team of CNB Kota, led by Mr. C. Prasad, Superintended, CBN Kota and other members namely Inspector Mr. J.P. Meena, Inspector, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Ct. Mohanchand Kalwar, LDC Mr. Gajraj Meena and Driver Mukesh Singh Rathore were on routine checking. The team left the police station by Govt. Vehicle No.RJ 20 UA 1973 and reached Toll Tax Mandana, Jhalawar. At about 10:50 am, one car No. DL 8 CX 3801 was seen coming there. There were two persons sitting in the car. The driver of the said car was signaled to stop by Shri J.P. Meena. The driver disclosed his name as Roopnarayan and the other person, sitting next to the driver seat, disclosed his name as Ajay. On interrogation, the appellants herein became nervous and did not give satisfactory replies to the questions put to them. On apprehension that they may be carrying some objectionable material, both appellants along with the car and independent public witnesses were taken to the office of Deputy Narcotics Commissioner, CBN, Kota. Both appellants were apprised their legal rights of personal search under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. As per the prosecution case, no suspicious or objectionable thing was recovered during personal search of both the appellants but during search of the car, contraband Ganja, kept in total 78 packets were recovered from the dicky of the car. Two lots of 40 packets and 38 packets were made on the basis of their size and weight. On weighing, 40 packets were found weighing 2.1 Kgs. each whereas remaining 38 packets were found weighing 2.2 Kgs each and thus, a total 167.6 Kgs. Ganja was allegedly recovered from the car. The weight of first lot was 84 Kgs. whereas the weight of the second lot of 38 packets was 83.6 Kgs. Two samples of 500 grams each were taken out from both the lots for chemical examination and they were given mark A-1, A-2, B-1 and B-2 respectively. The remaining contraband was again put in the same packets and lots of ten packets, were prepared and marked as A/1, A/2, A/3, A/4, B/1, B/2, B/3 and B/4. The appellants failed to produce any license or permit for the same. Both the accused persons were thereafter arrested in connection with the aforesaid recovery. The police team, thereafter, conducted usual investigation.

5. In connection with the aforesaid recovery, FIR No.2/2019 was registered at Police Station CBN, Kota for offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed chargesheet for offences under Sections 8/20 (c) and 8/29 of the NDPS Act against accused Roopnarayan, Ajay Kumat (appellants herein) and Vinay Kumar in the court of learned Special Judge, NDPS Case, Kota where charges for aforesaid offences were framed against the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

6. The accused persons were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which, they denied the prosecution evidence and stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case. Two w