The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the entire seized quantity of contraband and sending representative samples for chemical analysis to establish possession under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Surinder Singh,J :-The appellant was convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short “the Act” allegedly keeping in his possession 334.5 grams of Charas out of the recovery of 1 Kg. Substance. Accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-, which has been challenged in this appeal.

2. In brief, the prosecution case can be summed up thus. On 12.7.2007, PW3 SI Ramesh Chand along with HC Yash Pal (PW2), HHC Hem Raj (PW1) and HHC Lal Singh (not examined) were present on patrol duty for the detection of crime in Pulga jungle near the bridge. In the evening, at about 6 p.m., the appellant came from the side of Pulga village holding an envelope in his hand. On noticing the police party present near the bridge, he immediately returned back and started walking fast towards village Pulga and tried to throw away the envelope but the police overpowered and prevented him from doing so. They enquired about his identity to which he disclosed. The said place being a secluded one, no independent witness was available, although an effort was made by HHC Lal Singh. In absence of any independent witnesses, HC Yash Pal and HHC Lal singh both were associated as witnesses to witness the search. The envelope, which was in the hand of the appellant contained the inscription of “Mayur School Bag.” It was searched in the presence of the above witnesses. It contained a Pant and T-shirt, wherein two packets were found wrapped with cello-tape, which contained 1.00 Kgs of Charas in all in the shape of small sticks.

3. The police took two samples of 25 grams from the recovered quantity and sealed with seal impression ‘T’. The remaining Charas was also sealed with the same seal.

4. The NCB forms, in triplicate, were filled in on the spot. The seal impressions were taken separately and after its use the seal was handed over to HC Yash Pal. The case property was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PB. The appellant was arrested and grounds of arrest were informed to him.

5. A ruqa Ex. PC was sent for registration of the case through HHC Hem Raj, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PM was registered. The police had also prepared site plan of the place of recovery.

6. The Special Report was sent within the requisite time to the Superior Officer.

7. The appellant and the seized quantity along with samples were produced before PW7 SHO Mohinder Kumar. He resealed the case property with his seal producing the impression of letter ‘H’. The sample of seal Ex. PO of the said seal was also taken separately. Thereafter the case property was deposited in the Malkhana with PW5 MHC Roop Singh, which was entered by him in the Malkhana Register, the extract whereof is Ex. PH.

8. On 15.7.2007, the sample of ‘Charas’ along with seal impressions and NCB forms and the photocopy of the FIR, seizure memo and another connected documents were sent to the FSL Junga through PW6 C.Pardeep Kumar through RC No.184/07 (Ex. PJ). After depositing it in the said Laboratory, he produced the receipt Ex. PK to Roop Singh MHC. The Laboratory vide its report Ex. PS confirmed that the sample so sent was that of Charas.

9. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the court for trial of the appellant.

10. The appellant was accordingly charge-sheeted for the offence aforesaid. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter the prosecution examined its witnesses and the appellant was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the case of the prosecution and according to him he was falsely implicated in this case. The appellant did not state or explain anything what was the malice or the ill-will of police to frame him in a false case, however when called upon to enter into his defence even he did not probablise his defence.

11. At the end of the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.