The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the applicability of Section 50 and Section 100 of the NDPS Act in cases of personal search and chance recovery, and the significance of independent witnesses in the search and seizure process.

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 36-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) is directed against the judgment dated 18.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kullu, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2003 (RBT. S.T. No. 011 of 2004) whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 7th July, 2003, PW-9 SI Balwant Singh alongwith PW-1HHC Om Prakash, PW--2 HHC Jai Krishan, HHC Nand Lai were on patrol duty. They had gone to set-up a 'naka' at Kasol and were returning from police post Kasol to Manikaran. It is further the prosecution case that at about 8.30 a.m. when they were near the NHPC Colony one person was spotted coming from the opposite side i.e. Manikaran towards Kasol. He was wearing a shawl. That person was the appellant. On seeing the police he became perplexed. Therefore, a suspicion arose in the mind of the police party, which caught hold of him and inquired his name etc. The accused stated that his name was Gopal. As the Investigating Officer had some suspicion he gave his own search to the accused and thereafter searched the accused. On personal search of the accused, one wrapping paper with a khaki tape was found tied to the waist of the accused. On checking the wrapping paper it was found that it contained one polythene bag inside and inside the polythene bag there was a 'Charas'. The 'Charas' was weighed and found to be 800 gms.

3. Out of the recovered 'Charas' two samples of 25 gms. each were prepared and packed and sealed with seal-B. The remaining 'Charas' alongwith its wrapping were separately packed and sealed with seal-B. NCB form Ext. PW-6/C was filled in. The seal expression Ext. PW-9/A was retained and the 'Charas' packets and sample packets were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-1/A. Copy of the seizure memo was supplied to the accused. The accused was apprised of the offence committed and the punishment provided for the offence vide memo Ext. PW-l/B. The Investigation Officer (PW-9) thereafter sent a 'ruka' Ext. PW-9/B through PW-2 HHC Jai Krishan for registration of the case to Police Station, Kullu, on the basis of which PW-7 S.I. Smt. Kamla registered the FIR Ext. PW-7/A after making her endorsement PW-7/B on the 'ruka'.

4. The Investigating Officer also prepared the site plan Ext. PW-9/ C of the spot. On return to the Police Station, Investigating Officer produced the case property before PW-7 SHO, Police Station, Kullu who resealed the same with her own seal-H and deposited it with PW-6 MHC Dharam Chand. PW-6 made entry in this regard in the Malkhana register copy of which is Ext. PW-6/A. On 8.7.2003 PW-6 MHC Dharam Chand sent one sample of 'Charas' vide road certificate Ext. PW-6/B alongwith other documents to the CTL, Kandaghat through PW-3 constable Dalip Singh. The Chemical Examiner opined that the sample was that of 'Charas' vide his report Ext. PA. On receipt of the report the challan was filed.

5. The accused was charged for having committed an offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses in support of its case. The case of the accused in his statement under Section 313 CrPC was of denial simplicitor. No defence evidence was led by the accused.

6. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence recorded before it came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case that the 800 gms. of 'Charas' had been recovered from the accused and, therefore, he was guilty of having committed an offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. He wa