IMPORTANT POINT
The conviction under the N.D.P.S. Act cannot be sustained if the seized contraband is not produced in court and if the sampling does not comply with the statutory requirements of Section 52A.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Chand, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 25.04.2018 and the order of sentence dated 26.04.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Khunti in N.D.P.S. Case No.10 of 2014(K)/ N.D.P.S. Case No. 09 of 2011(R), whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 18(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-under Section 18(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. In case of default of payment of fine, the convict was directed to undergo imprisonment of one year.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal are that the informant Pramod Kumar Mishra, Police Inspector of Khunti Circle had given the written statement to the effect that on 27.06.2011 at 13:30 pm, he received the information from the Superintendent of Police, Khunti that certain persons of Bazar Tanr are involved in smuggling of narcotic substance and the transaction of opium was likely to take place in Bazar Tanrof Khunti. On this written information, the informant along with police force reached to the indicated place and a person was apprehended containing six kilograms opium in five packet and the same was produced before the Gazetted Officer. The seizure memo of the recovered opium was prepared and all the five packets were marked as X-1, X-2, X-3, X-4 and X-5 in presence of independent witness and the apprehended person was identified as Jai Ram Munda who told that this opium was handed over to him by Jeet Munda, Kishun Munda, Mangra Munda, Magan Munda and Ranjeet and the same was to be delivered to Md. Sirazudin of U.P. in Khunti Bazar Tand. It was also told by Jai Ram Munda that these persons used to cultivate opium and prepared opium from poppy. On the basis of fardbeyan, the formal FIR was registered as Khunti P.S. Case No.102 of 2011 under Sections 17, 18 and 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act against five accused persons, namely, Jai Ram Munda, Jeet Munda, Kishun Munda, Mangra Munda and Ranjeet.

3. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused Jai Ram Munda under Sections 17, 18 and 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the investigation against rest of the accused persons remained pending.

4. The Court of learned Special Judge-cum-Judicial Commissioner took cognizance on the charge-sheet and framed the charge against the accused Jai Ram Munda under Section 18(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The charge was read over and explained to him, he denied the charge and claimed to face the trial.

5. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused in oral evidence examined altogether ten witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, Vishal Kumar Pandey; P.W.-2, Ravi Kumar Pandey; P.W.-3, Chandra Bhan Ram; P.W.-4, Sujit Kumar; P.W.-5, Ritesh Kumar Sharma; P.W.-6, Anil Shankar; P.W.-7, Birendra Prasad Singh; P.W.-8, Pramod Kumar Mishra; P.W.-9, Md. Mahtab Alam and; P.W.-10, Kiran Kumari and in documentary evidence the prosecution has adduced Exhibit-1, Signature of Vishal Kumar Pandey on seizure list; Exhibit-1/1, signature of Ravi Kumar Pandey on seizure list; Exhibit-1/2, Signature of Anil Shankar on seizure list; Exhibit-2, endorsement on fardbeyan; Exhibit-2/1, self-recorded statement of informant Pramod Kumar Mishra; Exhibit-3, formal FIR; Exhibit-4, report of State Forensic Science Laboratory Ranchi and Exhibit-5, Memo of arrest of accused Jai Ram Munda.

6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in which, he denied the incriminating circumstances in evidence against him and stated himself to be innocent.

7. On behalf of the accused Jai Ram Munda, no defence evidence was adduced.

8. The learned trial Court after hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the accused and learned counsel for the State, passed the impugned judgment of conviction dated 25.04.2018 and the order of sentenc