Non-compliance with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act leads to vitiation of conviction, requiring strict adherence to evidence collection protocols.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”) by the appellant against the judgment dated 29.03.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri in T.R. Case No.128 of 2017 convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) in default whereof, to undergo RI for a further period of one year with direction for setting off pre trial detention against the substantive sentence.

2. Facts in precise are that on 20.07.2016 at about 6 AM, the Sub Inspector of Excise, District Mobile, Puri PW3-Suryanarayan Rath and ASI of Excise- PW1 Susanta Kumar Mohapatra along with staff while performing patrol duty near Talabania area, detained one Indica Car bearing Regd. No.OR-02-AM-3738 on suspicion in front of the Central School and after giving their identity to the driver-Ramakanta Nath (convict), searched the vehicle and found two polythene bags kept in the back seat of the car, but the convict disclosed that the said polythene bags contain Contraband Ganja. Then, after observing formality and calling seizure witness PW2-Bijay Pradhan, PW3 gave option in writing to the convict to be searched by a Executive Magistrate or by him, but the convict preferred to be searched by PW3 and after giving his personal search, PW3 searched two polythene sacks and found Contraband Ganja, which on weighment, came to 22Kgs, but as the convict could not produce any authority for possession of such quantity of Contraband Ganja, PW3 seized the polythene sacks containing Contraband Ganja and the Car with the RC Book, Voter Identity Card and Rs.350/- in presence of the witnesses under seizure list Ext.3 and arrested the convict and forwarded him to the Court along with seized Contraband Ganja with a prayer for collection of sample to send the same to State Drugs Testing and Research Laboratory (SDTRL), Odisha, Bhubaneswar for chemical examination and also submitted detailed report in Form No.C to the Inspector of Excise, Puri. On conclusion of investigation, PW3 submitted final PR against the convict and on receipt of final PR and finding prima facie material, the Special Judge, Puri took cognizance of offence and proceed with the case by supplying police papers and framing charge against the convict resulting in trial in the present case when the convict did not plead guilty to the charge.

3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined altogether 3 witnesses vide PWs.1 to 3; proved 9 documents under Exts.1 to 9 and identified 4 material object under MOI-IV as against no evidence whatsoever by the defence. Of the witnesses examined for the prosecution, PW1 is the ASI of Excise taking part in the raid, whereas PW3 is the SI of Excise-cum- raiding officer as well as the IO, but PW2 is an independent witness to the seizure.

4. After appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge, Puri convicted the appellant by wholly relying upon the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses and sentenced the convict to the punishment indicated in the first paragraph. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence, the convict has preferred this appeal.

5. In assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Mr. Mohan Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contends and submits before this Court that not only the mandatory provision of Section 42 of NDPS Act has not been complied with, but also the basic formality of search and seizure has not been follo