Compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act during the investigation, including the preparation of an inventory, sealing of contraband and samples on the spot, and the involvement of independent witnesses, is crucial for establishing the guilt of the accused in cases involving drug offenses.

1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 23.05.2017 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, (Special Court under NDPS Act) in case FIR No.01/2015 of Police Station GRP Jammu under Sections 8/21/22 NDPS Act, whereby both appellants (for short ‘accused’) namely Munish Kumar and Sunil Kumar have been convicted and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and fine of Rs.2 lacs each, for each of the offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and 21(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act by the trial Court.

2. In the memo of appeal, it is stated that on the basis of the docket sent by Inspector Neeraj Kumar Choudhary SHO GRP Police Station Jammu from Railway Station Complex that Munish Kumar and Sunil Kumar, both residents of New Delhi on 08.01.2015 had been found carrying a bag with a consignment of psychotropic injections- 2000 of Diazepam , 400 of Bupernorphene ,1480 of Exgesic, total 3880 of 2ml each, at Railway Station Jammu, near a passenger shed and that both of them could not produce any voucher or authority for the possession of these psychotropic injections, which they had transported to Jammu for drugs trafficking, a case was registered at GRP Police Station Jammu vide FIR No. 01/2015 for the commission of offences punishable under sections 8/21/22 NDPS Act. After investigation of the case, instant charge sheet was laid against Munish Kumar S/o Jagdish Prasad R/o H.No.1716 Harish Vihar, New Delhi and Sunil Kumar S/o Mohinder Kumar R/o H.No.1334 Tulsi Niketan Harish Vihar, New Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under sections 8/21/22 NDPS Act. Both the accused were charge sheeted by the trial court vide order dated 14.09.2015 for the commission of aforementioned offences, who denied the charge and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. Prosecution, in order to prove its case to bring home the charge against the accused, examined PW 1 HC Sat Pal Sharma, PW 2 HC Kamal Mehra, PW 3 HC Dilip Singh, PW 4 Ct Lal Din, PW 5 SGCt Satish Kumar, PW 6 SGCt Rakesh Kumar, PW 8 SPO Sunil Kumar, PW 9 Ct. Akhter Hussain, PW 10 Pawan Kumar Abrol and PW 15 Kamal Preet Singh, out of 15 cited witnesses.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment stating that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence produced by the prosecution in its right perspective and as such, fallen into grave error of law by holding the appellants guilty of committing aforementioned offence. It is stated that as per the prosecution version, when the appellants were apprehended by the Police at Railway Station, Jammu, near Passengers Shed, the SHO Neeraj Kumar Choudhary came on spot, who conducted the search of the Bag of the appellants and after recovery of injections, he seized the same and in the said seizure memo the prosecution has cited two witnesses namely Lal Din Constable and Daleep Singh Constable. It is further submitted that when both these witnesses were examined before the Trial Court, they had specifically stated that in their presence neither seizure memos were prepared nor the recovery memo wherein both these witnesses were cited as witness, was got exhibited before the Court below and this vital aspect of the case was not taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and as such on this count alone, the judgment deserved to be set aside. It is further stated that in this case admittedly all the witnesses which had been cited by the prosecution in the challan they all are the Police witnesses and the investigating officer of the case did not bother to associate any independent witness in the entire proceedings conducted by him on the spot despite their availability, as the appellants were apprehended from a place which is Railway Station being visited by the passengers frequently and where large number of independent witnesses can be easily available around the clock. It is further stated that all the prosecution witnesses who we