Strict compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act is essential; failure to do so invalidates the prosecution's case and may lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(Rajesh Sekhri, J.) :

1. This appeal has been directed against judgment dated 05.03.2011, propounded by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in File No. 12/Sessions titled "State of J&K v. Ashok Kumar and Anr.", vide FIR No. 177/ 2000 of Police Station Bahu Fort, Jammu for offences under sections 21/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act" for short), vide which, respondent has been acquitted.

2. The case set up by the prosecution in brief, is that on 05.06.2000 at about 7 P.M, a joint Naka of Police Station, Bahu Fort led by S.P., and NCB was laid at Panama Chowk. A Scooter, without registration number, on its way from Vikram Chowk to Railway Station was intercepted. While two pillion riders were apprehended by the Naka party, driver of the Scooter succeeded to give a slip to the Naka party and fled away. Accused apprehended on spot were found carrying a black colour bag. As the said bag was giving smell of some substance, a notice was given to the accused for exercise of option to be searched in presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. Since they opted to be searched in the presence of Magistrate, Tehsildar JDA, through Constable Rajinder Kumar, was called on the spot, in whose presence bag was searched and 10 bags of heroin were recovered. Higher Officers were informed via wireless. The contraband was weighed on the spot with the help a weighing pan, taken from a shopkeeper namely, Des Raj, and each packet was found to contain 01 Kg of contraband. One and a half gram of heroin each was drawn as samples from the 10 packets and samples were sealed on the spot in the presence of Magistrate. Certificate of search was also obtained from the Magistrate. Since accused were found in illegal possession of the Contraband, a docket was flashed to the Police Station, through Shahid Parvez, for formal registration of FIR. The aforesaid FIR came to be registered and investigation was entrusted to PW-Sham Lal. After rituals of formal investigation, including recovery and seizure of the contraband, preparation of samples and forwarding of the same to FSL for chemical examination, since aforesaid offences were established against accused, a final report in terms of Sections 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) was filed on 21.07.2000.

3. Respondent-Ashok Kumar was charge-sheeted by the trial court on 10.03.2001 for the aforesaid offences, whereby he pleaded innocence and claimed trial, therefore prosecution was directed to produce the evidence.

4. It is pertinent to mention that respondent no. 2-Balwant Raj absconded, during the trial and proceedings under section 512 CrPC were initiated against him on 21.10.2003.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses in the case. For the sake of brevity, instead of a detailed resume of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, relevant part of their testimonies are proposed to be resorted, as and when required. It is pertinent to mention that respondent denied the incriminating imputations arrogated to him and opted not to enter the defence.

6. Learned trial court, on appreciation of the prosecution evidence and hearing the rival sides, has acquitted the respondent as noted at the outset.

7. Having heard the rival contentions and perused the impugned judgment, we find ourselves in total agreement with the findings recorded by learned Trial Court.

8. The appellant-State has assailed the impugned judgment inter alia on the ground that learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in the right perspective and impugned judgment has been passed in a mechanical fashion despite sufficient material on record to sustain conviction of the respondent.

9. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG has reiterated the grounds urged in the memo of appeal.

10. However, on minute evaluation of the impugned judgment as also the prosecution evidence, we are of the considered opinion that case of the a