Compliance with procedural requirements for sample collection under the N.D.P.S. Act is essential; failure to do so raises reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, have called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20th May, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Phulbani in G.R. Case No.41 of 2015 corresponding to Phiringia P.S. Case No.37 of 2015.

The Appellants (accused persons) thereunder have 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, each of them 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 19.04.2015, the Sub-Inspector (S.I.) of Police, Phiringia P.S. (P.W.1), as per the direction of the then Officer-in-Charge (O.I.C.-P.W.10), had been to Telimunda Chhak on patrol duty. It was around 8.30 a.m., he found a white colour Indigo Car coming from Kelapada side towards Telimunda. The said vehicle, being detained, two of the occupants managed to escape and one among the three was apprehended and the person apprehended was then on the driver seat and he disclosed his name to be Gobinda Naik. The vehicle, being searched, two plastic bags kept inside the dickey of the car were recovered. The driver Gobinda Naik, being asked about the contents of the said bags, had disclosed those to be ganja. It is stated that at that point of time, the S.I. of Police (P.W.1) found a motorcycle coming from Kelapada side with two riders and a bag had been kept in between them. So, he (P.W.1) immediately detained the said motorcycle and deputed a staff to keep watch on them. He (P.W.1), having completed the search of the car, came near the motorcycle and those two persons, who when going on the motorcycle, had been detained. They too, being asked about the contents of the said bag that they were carrying, told that the same were ganja. They disclosed their names to be Suka Parida and Krushan Chandra Barik (accused persons before this this Court in this Appeal). The bag was searched and ganja was said to have recovered therefrom and accordingly, those were seized under seizure list Ext.3 prepared in presence of the Executive Magistrate. The content of that bag, being weighed, came to 21 kgs and 100 grams. He (P.W.1) then collected two samples each weighing 50 grams after thoroughly mixing the ganja and then sealed, labeled and seized the bulk quantity of ganja as well as ganja collected as samples. Having returned to the Police Station with the accused persons and the seized material and other documents, he (P.W.1) reported the matter in writing (Ext.8) to the O.I.C. (P.W.10), who then kept all those seized articles in P.S. Malkhana and it was around 7.30 p.m, he (P.W.10) having arrested the accused persons, on the next day, forwarded the accused persons in custody to Court. He (P.W.10), having brought the seized articles from the P.S. Malkhana, produced those before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Phulbani and made a prayer to send one part of the seized samples to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar and allow keeping of the bulk quantity of ganja in the Court Malkhana. As directed, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phulbani sent one sealed paper packet said to be containing ganja of 50 grams collected by the S.I. of Police (P.W.1) on 19.4.2015 (Ext.A), which was further marked at its level Ext.A/1 for chemical examination to State Forensic Science Laboratory. The report came that those were the fruiting and floweri