The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of maintaining the integrity of evidence and the chain of custody, particularly in cases involving narcotics, and the impact of such integrity on the court's decision.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.5.1997, and the order of sentence dated 22.5.1997, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (1st), Bhiwani, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Sher Singh, for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as the Act only) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of five years.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 2.4.1996, Phool Singh, SI, alongwith other police officials, including Jagat Singh, ASI, etc. was present on Dhani Harsukh turning in the area of Gujrani, when they noticed the accused coming from the side of Dhani Harsukh. On seeing the police party, the accused turned towards Chang road to avoid his apprehension. Phool Singh, SI, however, apprehended him. He was carrying a bag (thaila), on his right shoulder, at that time. Search of the bag (thaila), in accordance with the provisions of law, was conducted. It was found containing 650 grams charas. A sample of 50 grams, was separated, and the remaining charas, was put in a separate container. Both the containers were sealed, with the seal bearing impression "CM", and taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, the formal FIR was registered. Rough site plan of the place of recovery, with correct marginal notes, was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.

3. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Section 20 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial.

4. The prosecution, in support of his case, examined Sukhraj Singh, SI (PW-1), Nar Singh, ASI (PW-2), Ved Singh, HC (PW-3), Sunil Kumar, Constable (PW-4), Rameshwar Kumar, SI (PW-5), Jagat Singh, ASI (PW-6), and Phool Singh, SI (PW-7). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.

5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. The accused took the following plea in his statement :

"I alongwith some other persons of our village were standing at Hansi gate and were waiting for a bus. It was 4.00 or 4.30 PM. A jeep which carries passengers on hire, came there. It belonged to a person of Jatu Lohari. The Baba Harhargir of our temple was also standing there at Hansi Gate. All the passengers boarded the jeep including Babal and then two persons from the police came there. The police took the jeep alongwith the triver and the passengers to Police Station Sadar. The driver of the jeep was sent by the police during the night time. All others were detained for the night. One of us was Naresh, whose father succeeded in taking him away. Besides the Baba of our village, there was another Baba. The other Baba was also released as he said that he was suffering from fever. K.C.Sharma of our village, who is IAS officer gave a ring to the Police Station and then the Baba was also released by the police. I was detained by the police and I have been challanged. This is the whole story."

He, however, did not lead any evidence, in his defence.

6 After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore.

7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered