IMPORTANT POINT
In NDPS cases, the prosecution is required to prove the safe custody of the seized contraband and the integrity of the evidence chain, failing which an acquittal is justified.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges for commission of offence under section 8/20 NDPS Act arising out of FIR No. 3/2009 registered with Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu.

2. The judgment has been impugned on the ground that the learned trial court has mis-appreciated the evidence and acquitted the respondent erroneously, as the prosecution had successfully proved the allegations levelled against the respondent by leading cogent evidence.

3. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution had successfully proved the recovery of contraband from the respondent, but despite that the learned trial court acquitted the respondent by wrongly appreciating the evidence.

4. Mr. Jagpaul Singh, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not followed by the Investigating Agency, as such, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. The facts as they emanate from the chargesheet are that FIR bearing No. 3/2009 for commission of offence under section 8/20 NDPS Act was registered pursuant to a docket received at the Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu through Constable Zafar Iqbal from in-charge Police Post, Narwal. It was stated that the In-charge Police Post, Narwal along with Constable Basheer Ahmed, Selection Grade Constable Sat Pal, Selection Grade Constable Zafar Iqbal, Constable Masarat Hussain had laid a naka at Narwal Chowk and while checking the vehicles, one Maruti Car bearing No. JK01H-7392 that was coming from Malik Market towards Jammu city was stopped. During search of the vehicle, one white coloured polythene bag containing Charas was found from below the seat of the driver. The driver disclosed his name as Maqbool Raina and he could not give any satisfactory reply with regard to the contraband. The Charas was weighed and was found to be 8 Kilograms. After the registration of the FIR, the investigation was handed over to Inspector-Abdul Wahid Giri. He prepared the site plan of the place of recovery and also the seizure memo of Charas and car. The Investigating Officer extracted 200 grams from the seized contraband and prepared the sample. The sample was sent to FSL for chemical analysis. As per the FSL report, the Charas was detected in the samples. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. After the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer proved the offences under Section 8/20 NDPS Act against the respondent and thereafter the charge sheet was laid before the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu on 28.02.2009 and the same was transferred to the learned trial court.

7. The learned trial court framed the charges against the respondent for commission of offences under section 8/20 NDPS Act vide order dated 18.04.2009. As the respondent did not plead guilty, the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The prosecution had cited as many as 9 witnesses, out of which the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court acquitted the respondent.

8. In an acquittal appeal, it is to be examined as to whether the opinion formed by the learned trial court is possible/plausible while acquitting the respondent on the basis of evidence led by the parties during the trial and if it is so, then no interference with the judgment of acquittal is warranted.

9. In order to appreciate the contentions of the appellant and to examine as to whether the opinion formed by the learned trial court is possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution or not, it is necessary to have a brief resume of the relevant portion of the prosecution evidence.

10. PW 1-Parvez Sajad stated that on