The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish a clear and consistent chain of evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Oswal, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 29.09.2012 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in case tilted, “State v. Amarjit Singh & Anr.” arising out of FIR bearing No. 59/2010 dated 18.07.2010 for commission of offences under sections 8 and 15 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act (for short the Act) registered with Police Station, Miran Sahib, Jammu.

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

3. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence despite the fact that the prosecution had successfully proved all the charges against the respondents.

4. It is pertinent to note that this appeal was filed against two accused persons and respondent No. 1-Amarjit Singh as per certificate produced by Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG has died and appeal against him, as such, abates.

5. Now the brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that on 08.07.2010, ASI Nazir Akbar Khan of Police Station, Miran Sahib had laid down a naka at Maralian, Miran Sahib along with other police personnel and at about 4.30 A.M. in the morning, a truck bearing registration No. JK 02F 6315 was intercepted at naka but after stopping the truck, the driver of the truck along with three other persons jumped out from the vehicle and ran towards village Maralian. They were chased by the police personnel. Accused Amarjit Singh, driver of the truck and Vishwa Nath, cleaner of the truck were apprehended but other two accused persons, namely, Harmeet Singh and Manjeet Singh succeeded in running away from the spot.

6. During search of the truck, five sacks and four small plastic sacks were recovered from the upper part of tool box and on opening the said sacks, Bhuki (Poppy Straw) weighing approximately more than one quintal was recovered. Both the accused could not produce any permission for possession of the said contraband. One docket was sent to the Police Station, Miran Sahib by Nazir Akbar Khan through constable Rajinder Singh. FIR No. 59/2010 for commission of offences under sections 8 and 15 of the Act was registered against the accused and thereafter, SHO Police Station, Miran Sahib along with other police officials came on the spot. SDPO and Tehsildar R.S. Pura also came on spot and in presence of the aforesaid officials, the truck was seized along with nine sacks of Poppy Straw. Nine samples weighting 250 grams each were extracted from the sacks and were sealed with ring marked as 'S' for sending the same to the FSL for chemical analysis. The nine sacks containing Poppy Straw were also sealed and marked as A to I respectively, whereas packets containing representative samples were marked as A-1 to I-1. The seized contraband was weighed with a weighing scale and it was found to be 165 Kg and 50 grams. The ring marked 'S' was kept on the supurdnama of Mulkh Raj whereas weighing scale was kept separately on the supurdnama of Amar Nath. Statements of the witnesses under sections 161 and164-A Cr.P.C. were recorded and nine packets of samples were sent to the FSL after getting them resealed from the Executive Magistrate, R.S. Pura. After the conclusion of the investigation and on the basis of FSL report, it was established that the accused had committed offence under sections 8 and 15 of the NDPS Act. After conclusion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the respondents 1 and 2 in the court as other accused were not found. The charges were framed against the accused under sections 8 and 15 of the Act on06.12.2010 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution was directed to lead evidence.

7. In order to appreci