1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant-Kali Dass against the impugned judgment passed by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (Special Court under NDPS Act) dated 27.09.2016 in Special Case No. 39/2009, titled, State of J&K vs. Kali Dass, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine of Rs.40,000/- under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one-fourth of the substantive sentence of imprisonment.

2. The case set up by the prosecution is that on 02.02.2009 at about 3:45 p.m. a Police party of Police Post Canal Road, Jammu during patrolling spotted one person with a bag in his hand. He was moving from canal head to Bhagwati Nagar, and on being frisked and checking of bag, a polythene white bag containing one black and one white coloured bags, 500 parvon spas capsules contained in strips from white bag and 295 capsules of pravon spas were recovered from black bag. Accordingly, an FIR No. 18/2009 was registered under section 08/20/21 of NDPS Act by the Police Station, Nowabad, Jammu.

3. After conclusion of the investigation by the Police, challan for commission of offence under section 08/20/21 of NDPS Act was presented against the appellant before the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. The appellant denied the charges framed against him and claimed to be tried.

4. Prosecution in order to prove its case to bring home the charge against the appellant examined PW1-SI Kuldeep Raj, PW3-SGCT Rajinder Singh, PW 7-Rohit Koul and PW 8-Inspector Arun Jamwal as prosecution witnesses. On the other hand, the appellant has not led any evidence in support of his case.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment stating that Section 50 of NDPS Act, which is mandatory in nature, has not been complied with. It is further stated that prosecution case also suffered from the infirmity that it has not been proved by the prosecution that Forensic Laboratory form was deposited with the malkhana and was given along with the sample to the Constable for taking it to Forensic Laboratory. It is stated that prosecution has not proved the link evidence between the taking of the sample and its subsequent dispatch to the FSL and the safe custody of the sample till the report was received and that the trial court has not appreciated the fact that the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution witnesses, who were produced to prove the seizure of the contraband articles, have not supported the prosecution and the seizure have not been proved and it was wrong on the part of the learned trial court to still presume the involvement of the appellant in the alleged occurrence. It is stated that the impugned judgment has been passed by the trial court on conjecture and surmises without there being any clinching evidence against the appellant and has failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. On the basis of aforementioned submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside.

6. No one is present for respondents despite service.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Before re-appreciating the evidence on record, in order to come to conclusion as to whether trial court was correct in convicting the appellant/accused, the brief resume of statements of prosecution witnesses produced before court below reads as under:-

PW-1 SI Kuldeep Raj in his evidence has stated that in the year 2009, he was incharge Police Post, Canal Road Jammu, and on 2nd of February 2009 he along with CTs Bittu Lal, Rajinder Singh and Sham Lal was on Patrolling to Bhagwati Nagar and while they were returning t