IMPORTANT POINT : Prosecution is not only required to prove that contraband was recovered from accused but it is also obligatory on part of Investigating Officer to bring material on record that after recovery was made and samples were extracted, samples were kept in safe custody so as to avoid any chance of fiddling with samples.

Judgment

Rajnesh Oswal, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment dated 21.02.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge Reasi (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in case tilted, “State vs Kewal Krishan” arising out of FIR bearing No. 125/2010 for commission of offences under sections 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act (for short the Act) registered with Police Station, Katra.

2. The judgment has been assailed primarily on the ground that the learned trial court acquitted the respondent despite the fact that the appellant had proved the charges against the respondent and further that the learned trial court has wrongly appreciated the evidence.

3. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has wrongly acquitted the appellant on the premise that there was violation of section 50 of the Act whereas the fact remains that the alleged contraband has not been recovered from the personal search of the respondent but from the vehicle which was being driven by the respondent.

4. On the contrary, Mr. Dinkar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that there are material contradictions with regard to the recovery of the contraband from the vehicle and further that the appellant did not examine the Forensic Expert to prove the FSL report.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. The facts necessary for the consideration of the present appeal are that information was received in the Police Station, Katra from reliable source on 30.06.2010 that the respondent-Kewal Krishan, driver of a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. JK 02AK 2937 was involved in the illicit trade of Charas and was bringing Charas from Kashmir in a Tata Sumo for sale in Katra. On the basis of this information, FIR No.125/2010 for offences under sections 8 and 20 of the Act was registered. The SDPO laid a naka near Varun Hotel at Railway Chowk and the vehicle was stopped and during search, two blue coloured polythene bags were recovered from beneath the driver”s seat. 46 corn cob leaves containing Charas like material were recovered from one of the bags and Poppy Straw was recovered from other polythene bag. The contraband was weighed on spot. The Charas with corn cob leaves was 1 Kg and 696 grams and 1 Kg and 492 grams without corn cob leaves. The Poppy Straw was weighed as 500 grams. Charas and Poppy Straw were separately brought under seizure on the spot. 40 grams of Charas was taken out as a sample for chemical examination and samples were prepared and marked as mark “A” and “A1” and likewise 30 grams of Poppy Straw was segregated for chemical analysis and packets were marked as “B” and B1”. The FSL report was also received and during investigation, offences under section 8, 15 and 20 of the Act were established against the respondent. The prosecution cited as many as 11 witnesses, out of which 8 were examined, i.e. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10. PW-5 Rattan Singh, the Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Katra who had resealed samples of the contraband and PW-6 i.e. Pawan Abrol, Forensic Expert were not examined by the prosecution.

7. The charge sheet was filed against the accused on 02.09.2010 and the charges were framed against the respondent on 05.10.2010 for commission of offences under section 8, 15 and 20 of the Act and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence.

8. After the closure of the prosecution evidence on 04.07.2012, statement of the respondent was recorded under section 342 Cr. P.C. and thereafter the respondent did not choose to lead evidence and rather appellant filed an application under section 540 Cr.P.C. for examination of two witnesses i.e. PW-5 and 6, however, the said application was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 17.12.2011.

9. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 21.02.2012 acquitted the respondent and dismissed the charge sheet filed by the appellant.

10. In order to appreciate the