Non-compliance of certain provisions does not invalidate the case if no prejudice is caused to the accused. Joining independent witnesses is crucial, and delay in crucial procedures can be fatal to the prosecution's case.

V.M.Jain, J.

1. This is an appeal against the Judgment dated 1.2.1991, passed by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot, acquitting the accused-respondent, Jaswant Singh of the charge under Section 15 of the NDPS Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 15.11.1888, SI Jaswant Singh of CIA Staff, Moga, sent ruqa Ex PB, to Police Station, Mehna, to the effect that on that day, he along with other Police Officials, was coming on government vehicle in search of extremists in the area of Police Station, Mehna, and when the Police party reached the bridge, situated on the metalled road, leading from Moga to Ludhiana, in the area of village Matwani, two persons were seen (in the light of the vehicle) sitting on both sides of the bridge. On suspicion, the vehicle wsa stopped. One person, who was found stitting on the bags, which were full, was apprehended and on enquiry, he gave his name as accused, Jaswant Singh @ Hansa Singh, while the other person, who was found sitting on the bags, which were full, was also apprehended and on enquiry, he gave his name as co-accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Chhinda. Ten bags of poppy-husk were recovered from the possession of accused Hansa Singh, since he was found sitting on these bags. Each bag was found containing 45 kgs. of poppy-husk. 200 gms of poppy-husk was separated from each bag, by way of sample and thereafter, the samples and the bags containing the remaining poppy-husk, were dully sealed and were taken into possession. Since the accused, Jaswant Singh @ Hansa Singh, was found in possession of poppy-husk, without licence, he had contravened the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. On the basis of the said ruqa, Ex PB, formal FIR Ex PB/1, was registered in Police Station, Mehna, on the same day i.e. on 15.11.1988. SI Jaswant Singh prepared rough site plan. Ex PC, of the place of recocery. On return to the Police Station, the accused and the case property were produced before the SHO, who put his own seal on the case property. Thereafter, the accused was lodged in the Police lock-up while the case property was deposited with the MHC. After the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, challan was submitted against the accused.

3. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused, Jaswant Singh of the charge under Section 15 of the Act vide judgment dated 1.2.1991. Aggrieved against the same, the State of Punjab filed the present Appeal against acquittal in this Court.

4. No one had put in appearance on behalf of the accused-respondent, at the time of arguments.

5. We have heard leanrd counsel for the State (appellant) and have gone through the record carefully.

6. Learned counsel for the State of Punjab submitted before us that accused respondent was acquitted in this case on account of the non-compliance of provisions of Sections 52 and 57 of the Act and also on the ground that no independent witness was joined by the Police, at the time of recovery. It was submitted that in fact Sections 52 and 57 of the Act were not mandatory and as such the acquittal of the accused for non-compliance of the said provisions, was bad in law. Reliance was placed on the law laid down in the cases reported as State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994(1) RCR 736 and Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala, 2001(6) SCC 692 : 2001(3) RCR(Crl.) 808 (SC). It was further submitted that merely because no independent witness was joned by the Police, by itself, would be no ground to throw-away the case of the prosecution, especially when the evidence of the Police-witnesses, namely PW-2, ASI Balbir Singh and PW-3, SI Jaswant Singh, was cogent and convincing about the recovery of the bags, containing poppy-husk, from the possession of the accused- respondent.

7. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the accused, had found that the mandatory provisions of Sections 52 and 57 of the Act had not