The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to comply with section 50 of the NDPS Act and the importance of establishing a clear, cogent, and reliable link between the recovered substance and the report of the chemical analyst to prove the contraband nature of the substance.

1. This appeal is by one Mohd. Naseer, who has been convicted under section 20(b)(ii)(c) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for (short the NDPS Act) by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu vide judgment dated 12.05.2009 and vide order of the even date has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-

2. Heard. We have perused the record.

3. The case of the Prosecution as projected before the trial court, briefly, is that on 10.05.2006 the appellant (hereinafter the accused) came to be accosted in the course of routine checking by a police party headed by PW-Matlub Hussain Shah, Head Constable, at Police Naka point, Bhatindi. Accused was coming on foot and was carrying a black colour bag. The bag on checking was found containing lot of charas like substance and Indian currency. The accused on enquiry introduced himself as Mohd. Naseer s/o Mohammad Hafeez r/o Sagrawat, Tehsil, Darhal, District, Rajouri. The Head Constable despatched a docket to SHO Police Station, Bahu Fort giving the detail of the occurrence and stating that offence under Section 20 NDPS Act has been committed and also made a request for the presence of the Sub Divisional Police Officer, City, East, Jammu (for short the SDPO) and Incharge of the concerned Police Post on spot. On the basis of this docket, FIR No.53/2006 under section 20 NDPS Act was registered at Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu and investigation was entrusted to PSI Shakti Devi, Officer Incharge, Police Post, Bhatindi (PW-11). The Investigating Officer (I.O.) reached at the place of occurrence and on her request the SDPO also reached there. The SDPO wrote and read out to the accused a notice (Ex. PW-AA) regarding search of the bag, who consented for search by the SDPO saying that the latter was a Gazetted Officer and may search the bag. The accused signed the notice. The SDPO then ordered the I.O. to search the bag in his presence. Charas wrapped in maize-cone leaves and Indian currency worth Rs. 1, 35, 700/ were recovered from the bag. The charas was weighed and found weighing 1 Kg. and 400 gms. Sample weighing 50 gms was separated from the charas and sealed on spot for chemical examination. It was marked as `A'. The sealing was done by using a ring bearing mark `T' which was kept on superdari of PW Tasleem Tariq. The charas and the currency were seized on spot and recovery--cum- seizure memo (Ex.PW-RK) was prepared. Accused was arrested for commission of offence under section 20 of NDPS Act. The chemical examination report about the sample was obtained and commission of offence under section 20 of NDPS Act was established against the accused.

4. On completion of investigation, charge sheet against the accused was laid before the trial court. Accused pleaded not guilty to charge under section 20 of NDPS Act framed by the learned trial court on 13.09.2006 and claimed to be tried. Prosecution entered its evidence and examined 13 witnesses, namely, Anwar Ali (PW-1), Yash Paul (PW-2), Maqsood Ali Shah (PW-3), Bashir Ahmad (PW-4), Tasleem Arif (PW-5), Abishekh Khajuria (PW-6), Iqbal Singh (PW-7), Ravinder Kumar Anand (PW- 8), Rajinder Gupta (PW-9), Subash Singh (PW-10), Shakti Devi (PW-11), Shakeel Ahmed (PW-12) and Mohd Rafq (PW-13). Learned trial court also recorded statement of the accused in terms of section 342 Cr. PC and the accused produced one witness, namely, Mohd Hussain in his defence.

5. Learned trial court after appraisal of the evidence and record held that prosecution has succeeded in proving that the accused was in possession of 1 kg. and 400 gms. of charas, which was recovered from him and that commission of offence punishable under section 20 (b) (ii)(c) of NDPS Act was established. Learned trial court, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused. Hence this appeal.

6. The conviction and sentence have been assailed, firstly, on the ground that the evidence led by the prosecu