IMPORTANT POINT
The requirement for the presence of a Magistrate during the sampling of seized narcotics is essential to ensure the integrity of evidence, and failure to comply with this requirement can lead to reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

D.Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13th March, 2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Boudh in Special Case No.21/2015 (NDPS Act) (T) arising out of C.T. Case No.51/2015 corresponding to Boudh P.S. Case No.28 of 2015.

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for commission of the offence under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'the N.D.P.S. Act'). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) for commission of the said offence.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 03.02.2015 around 3.15 p.m, the Sub-Inspector (S.I.) of Police, Boudh P.S. (P.W.10), receiving the secret information that the accused persons were packing the dried and processed fruiting and flowering tops of cannabis plant in a field in Village-Kanagun near Baghiapada for local transportation of the same, he, having entered the said fact in the Station Diary maintained at the P.S. and sending a copy of the same to the Superintendent of Police and S.D.P.O, Boudh, proceeded to the place with other police officials in a vehicle. It is further stated that the raiding team, having arrived at the spot and found the accused persons present and then they were packing the dried and processed fruiting and flowering tops of cannabis plant in two sacs. All the accused persons then at the sight of police, took to their heels and they being chased only one accused person, the present accused was nabbed whereas the other two managed to fled away. It is stated that two polythene carry bags were recovered and those were containing dried processed flowering and fruiting tops of cannabis plant/contraband ganja. The bags were then weighed and marked Ext.A and B. One bag, being weighed, 45 kgs and 200 grams of ganja were recovered whereas from the other bag, 47 kgs and 770 grams of ganja was recovered. It is stated that P.W.10 then collected two random samples of 25 grams of ganja from each of the bags and marked Ext.A/1, A/2, B/1 and B/2. After completion of the formalities as to the preparation of seizure list, P.W.10 with other police officials as also the accused came to the Police Station along with seized articles. The FIR was then registered and P.W.10 himself took up the investigation. It is further stated that the accused, being produced before the Special Court, a prayer was made by the P.W.10 to keep the bulk quantity of ganja in two packets (Ext.A and Ext.B) along with the two samples (Ext.A/2 and Ext.B/2) in Court malkhana and it was further prayed to send the samples (Ext.A/1 and Ext.B/1) be sent for chemical examination, which were allowed. Finally, on completion of the investigation and other formalities, as also on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examination, the I.O. (P.W.10) submitted the Final Form placed this accused along with two others to face the Trial and that is how this accused faced the Trial.

3. The Trial Court, after examination of the evidence both oral and documentary let in by the prosecution, has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused that he, on that particular date, time and place, was in possession of 92.970 kgs of ganja beyond reasonable doubt and as such is liable to be punished under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. Accordingly, the accused has been convicted and sentenced as afore-stated.

4. Heard Mr.Jagabandhu Sahu, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.P.K.Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Respondent-State.

I have perused the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Trial and Court and have also extensively travelled through the evidence of all the prosecution witness (P.Ws.l to 13), more particularly the evidence of S.I. of Police (P.W.10.)

5. Admittedly, P.W.10 dre