The duty of the prosecution to produce reliable evidence and the need for strict compliance with search and seizure procedures under the NDPS Act.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. State of Punjab has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.1.1991, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, who acquitted Shri Jalaur Singh son of Ruldu Singh, respondent, in case of FIR No. 72 dated 30.5.1989, registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Police-Station, Jagraon.

2. The story of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.5.1988 at about 8.30 A.M. in the area of village Cheema, respondent Jalaur Singh was allegedly found in possession of 5 quintals 32 kgs and 500 grams of poppy husk contained in 15 bags. The alleged recovery was effected from him by Mohan Lal Assistant Sub Inspector vide memo Ex. PA after taking out a sample of 250 grams from each of the bags Ex. P.1 to Ex. P. 15 in the presence of Harsukh Dev Pal Head Constable and Surjit Singh constable who appeared as PW-1 and PW-2 in the trial Court. As the accused failed to produce any licence or permit for the possession of the poppy husk, a rukka was sent to the police-station for the registration of the case on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PB/1 was recorded. The Investigating Officer completed the formalities of the investigation such as preparing the rough site plan of the place of the alleged recovery. He sealed the case property and the sample was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner in a sealed cover and on receiving the report of the Chemical Examiner, the accused was challenged under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act, who was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

3. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses namely PW-1 Head Constable Harsukh Dev Pal and PW-2 Shri Surjit Singh constable. Both the witnesses are formal and deposed on affidavits. The Investigating Officer Shri Mohan Lal, ASI appeared As PW-3 and the eye witnesses Shri Lehmber Ram Head Constable appeared as PW4. The Gazetted Officer Shri Hardeep Singh, was also examined by the prosecution as PW-5. After tendering into evidence the report of the Chemical Examiner, the prosecution closed the case.

4. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, were put to the accused who stated that he was innocent and a false case has been planted on him.

5. When called upon to enter into his defence, the accused examined Shri Mohinder Singh Sahota, Public Prosecutor of Delhi Administration who deposed that accused was arrested on the night intervening 29/30.5.1988 and no incriminating articles were recovered from his possession.

6. The trial court recorded the finding of acquittal and gave the reasons in paras No. 8 to 12 of the impugned judgment, which are reproduced below :-

8. Recovery of five bags contained 35-1/2 kgs of each of poppy husk is sought to be proved by the evidence of two official witnesses. The time of the recovery is stated to be 8.30 A.M. and the place is thoroughfare it is not believable that no non-official witness was present around the time and place of recovery. Two officials were sent to bring weighing scale and weights from contiguously situated village but they were not asked to bring any independent person with them. These officials had brought not only a weighing scale and weights, but they also brought a tractor trolley for lifting the case property back to the police-station. The owner and driver of the tractor trolley must have come with those officials but they were not cited or examined as witnesses of the recovery. I feel that a deliberate attempt has been made by the Instigator to keep naturally available independent person away from the prosecution story for obvious reasons. Statements of official witnesses have therefore to be scrutinised with an extra amount of caution.

9. Admittedly, grounds of the arrest of the accused were not conveyed to him in writin