The failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly regarding search, seizure, and custody, vitiates the prosecution's case leading to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

This common judgment shall dispose of the aforementioned Criminal Appeals filed by the appellants challenging the judgment passed on 9/11.01.2018 by the learned Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Nuapada in Special Act Case No. 10 of 2013. As per the said judgment, the appellants were convicted of the offence under Section 20 (b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years each.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is, on 21.10.2013 at about 5.00 A.M. the S.I and staff of Komna Police Station in the district of Nuapada found two vehicles namely, TATA Indigo LS vehicle bearing Registration No. MP 20 CA 4684 and Maruti Suzuki Alto 800 bearing Registration No. MP 51 CA 0624 coming from Khariar side towards Komna. The vehicles were intercepted for verification. On search of the vehicle 33 packets were found from both the vehicles and on further search the packets were found to contain contraband Ganja. The total quantity of Ganja was found to be Q.1.90Kgs 50 Grams. The occupants of the vehicles were detained and the formalities of search and seizure were carried out. The samples were taken for chemical analysis and the remaining Ganja was repacked in different bags. The accused persons were arrested and forwarded to the Special Court. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Section 20 (b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and the accused persons were put to trial.

3. The accused persons took the plea of denial.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents. The defence did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary.

5. Learned Special Judge examined the oral evidence on record in detail. It was urged by the defence that there was non- compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections-50, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. Learned Special Judge after going through the oral and documentary evidence on record held that there was no violation of the provisions of Section- 50 and 55 of the NDPS Act. Learned Special Judge also held that in view of the evidence of the I.O, there was no violation of Section- 57 of the Act. As such, it was held that the evidence of the witnesses was trustworthy and that the contraband Ganja had been properly seized and also kept in proper custody after being sealed and therefore, there was no infirmity in the procedure adopted. On such findings, learned Special Judge convicted the appellants and sentenced them as aforesaid.

6. Heard Mr. J.R. Dash, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

7. Assailing the impugned order of conviction, Mr. Dash contends that the mandatory provision relating to search, seizure and custody of the contraband were not complied with at all. According to him, the I.O. P.W.-14 has admitted such violation during his cross- examination. Since, the mandatory provisions have been violated the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

8. Per contra, Mr. P. Tripathy argues that the informant could not adduce evidence as he had expired but the other witnesses who were present at the spot during search and seizure of the contraband have clearly and cogently proved that the same was done strictly in compliance of the statutory provisions. He further argues that the learned Special Judge has taken pain to meticulously scan the evidence of the witnesses