The competence of the seizing officer to investigate, the significance of consistent prosecution evidence, and the negligible impact of weight discrepancies on the trial's validity.

JUDGMENT :

Surinder Singh, J.

The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 14/09, decided on 30.10.2009, under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short the 'Act', whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year allegedly for possessing 1 Kg. 600 grams of the stuff, which contained 608.48 grams of Charas (Resin of the cannabis plant).

2. In short, the prosecution story as emerges from the prosecution evidence can be stated thus. On 22nd December, 2008, PW-10 SI/SHO Dharam Singh along with PW-3, Constable Virender Kumar, HC Hoshiar Singh and HHC Ghanshyam were on patrolling in their official vehicle being driven by Krishan Kumar, in connection with the detection of crime. They had put a 'Nakka' at the place known as 'Sambla Chowk'. In the process of checking of pedestrians and different vehicles passing through that place, around 1.00 p.m. they noticed the appellant having a pithu (Bag), hung on his shoulder, who on seeing the Police Party took U-turn and immediately started running. Getting suspicious, the Police party apprehended him and asked his identity. On checking the bag, a black substance was recovered from a plastic bag having imprint of 'AMARTEX INDUSTRIES'. On its examination, the contents smelt like Charas, which was found in small flat pieces like 'Chapatis'. The recovered stuff was kept as it is. PW-3 constable Virender Kumar was sent for arranging the weights and scale from a shop of PW-2 Omi Chand, which was nearby. Shri Omi Chand was also included to witness further proceedings. On weighing, the recovered stuff turned out to be 1 Kg. 600 grams. The police mixed the aforesaid entire stuff and separated two samples of 25 grams each. Each Sample parcels were sealed with the seal producing the impression of English letter 'D' and the remaining Charas was put in the same Poly bag and then sealed in the same bag with the same seal.

3. The specimen of the seal was separately taken on a piece of cloth, which is Ex.PW1/A and seal after its use was handed over to PW-1 HC Hoshiar Singh.

4. The case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B in the presence of the witnesses and its copy was supplied free of cost to the appellant.

5. NCB forms, in triplicate, were filled in on the spot, one of which is Ex.PW-10/B.

6. Rukka Ex.PW-10/A was sent for the registration of case through PW-3 constable Virender Kumar. Site plan Ex. PW-10/C was also prepared on the spot.

7. The statements of witnesses were recorded, appellant was arrested and grounds of arrest Ex. PW10/E were informed to him.

8. The case property was deposited in Malkhana with PW-8 MHC Inder Dev, its entry was made in the Malkhana - Register, extract whereof is Ex.PW-4/C.

9. The special report was sent to the officer superior within statutory period.

10. PW-4 HC Thalia Ram had handed over one of the sample parcels to PW-5 Chet Ram against the Road Certificate (Ex.PW-4/D) accompanied by the sample of seal, copy of FIR and NCB forms in triplicate for its deposit in Forensic Science Laboratory. On depositing the same on 24.12.2008, he obtained the receipt on the said Road Certificate, which was handed over back by him to the HC aforesaid.

11. On analysis sample parcel testified positive for Charas by the Forensic Science Laboratory. It contained 38.03% w/w resin of cannabis plant. The report is Ex.PW-10/F.

12. After completion of investigation, challan against the appellant was presented in the trial Court and he was accordingly charge-sheeted, under Section 20 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

13. To prove its case the prosecution examined its witnesses and the appellant was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied all the circumsta