Compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory; failure to adhere to these provisions vitiates the legality of the search and seizure, resulting in inadmissibility of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( in short, “the Act”), the appellant-State has filed the instant appeal.

2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 3.3.2010, in the evening, a police party, headed by PW9 Head Constable Chaman Lal (Investigating Officer) comprising of PW1 Head Constable Paras Ram and HHC Chet Ram was present at Check Post Bajaura where Head Constable Purshotam (PW-2), HHC Bahadur Singh, HHC Tek and Head Constable Rakesh Kumar were already present for patrolling duty and a dog squad was also with them. At around 8:30 P.M. a bus bearing registration No. PB-02-BF 9841 came from Bhuntar side, which was signalled for stoppage by PW-9 and other police officials and accordingly the said bus was stopped there. The rear door of the bus was found locked from inside and thereafter PW9 Head Constable Chaman Lal alongwith PW1 Head Constable Paras Ram and PW2 Head Constable Purshotam Ram boarded the bus from the front door and asked the names of driver and conductor of the bus, who, in turn, disclosed their names to be PW11 Baldev Singh driver and PW10 Anup Singh conductor. The police party associated PW10 and PW11 as witnesses and started searching the bus from driver side. On seeing the police party, the respondent, who was found sitting on seat No. 27 in the bus, got perplexed. The Investigating Officer suspected the respondent to have some contraband in his possession and accordingly, the respondent was asked about his name, who disclosed his name to be Sher Singh. Thereafter the respondent was given option to be searched either before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate vide memo Ex.PW-2/A and the respondent consented to be searched by the police officials. Thereafter PW9 Head Constable Chaman Lal gave his personal search to the respondent inside the bus vide memo Ex.PW-2/B. At the time of personal search of the respondent and his luggage, a polythene bag was recovered from right pocket of the jeans of the respondent. On being opened, polythene bag was found to be containing black colour substance (charas). The recovered charas was weighed with electronic scale outside the bus and its weight was found to be 100 grams. The recovered contraband was again put inside the said polythene bag and other codal formalities qua sealing and seizure of the case property were done.

3. The investigating Officer also filled-in relevant columns of NCB-1 form on the spot and sample seal was obtained on piece of cloth, Ex.PW-2/C as well as on NCB-1 form Ex.PW-3/C and the case property was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-2/D. Thereafter the Investigating Officer prepared rukka Ex.PW-1/A and sent the same to Police Station through PW1 Head Constable Paras Ram for registration of case. The respondent was arrested vide memo Ex.PW-2/F and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW-2/E.

4. The case was further investigated by PW9 Head Constable Chaman Lal, who prepared spot map Ex.PW-9/A and recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Formal FIR Ex.PW-7/B, on the basis of rukka, came to be registered by PW7 Sub-Inspector Krishan Chand and on reaching the Police Station the Investigating Officer produced the case property, i.e., sealed parcel Ex.PA containing polythene bag Ext. PB and contraband, Ex. PC. before the then Station House Officer PW7 Sub-Inspector Krishan Chand. He resealed the parcel with four seals of 'T' and after obtaining sample of seal on separate piece of cloth Ex.PW-7/C as well as NC