Mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, must be strictly complied with to protect the rights of the accused and ensure fair investigation.

1. Recovery of 1.5kg of crushed poppy heads had led to the conviction of the appellant for which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and the same has been challenged in this appeal.

2. ASI Manjit Singh, along with constables Sukhchain Singh and Mohan Singh, was present at the back side of the Punjab University Campus, Chandigarh, at about 7.30 p.m., on 29-4-1986. He received secret information that the appellant would be passing by the bus stop of village Dhanas while carrying crushed poppy heads. Mohan Singh, a clerk in the Electricity Department, passed by that side and he was joined by the ASI. Thereafter the party proceeded towards the said bus stop and the site was picketed After some time, the appellant was noticed coming from the side of village Saranpur. The appellant on reaching the bus stop and seeing the Police Party, turned back whereupon he was overpowered on suspicion. From his right hand, Jhola Ex. P-1 was recovered and after the ASI gave his personal search to the appellant, the person of the appellant was searched from the Jhola carried by him, crushed poppy heads, weighing 1.5 Kg, were recovered and the appellant could not produce any permit for possession thereof. The glazed paper in which it was carried was taken into possession. Ruqa was sent for the registration of the case through Constable Sukhchain Singh and First Information Report was recorded on its basis. After completing the various formalities of investigation, report under S.173, Criminal P. C. (briefly the Code) was presented before the Illaqua Magistrate. Sealed bag of the crushed poppy heads was sent for chemical examination through constable Jagdish Singh and according to the report of the Chemical Examiner morphine and meconic acid were found present in the same.

3. After going through the documents, the Magistrate committed the case for trial before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Judge, after framing the charge for an offence under S. 18, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) (shortly the Act), to which the appellant pleaded not guilty, examined Constable Mohan Singh (P.W. 1), Jaswant Singh Draftsman (P.W. 2) who prepared the site plan of the place of recovery; Mohan Singh, said clerk (P.W. 5) and ASI Manjit Singh (P.W. 6). The prosecution tendered the affidavits of Constable Jagbir Singh and MHC Thakur Singh as P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 respectively. The appellant in his statement under S. 313 of the Code took up the plea that he has been falsely implicated and the prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely against him. He has further stated that on 284-1986, at about 6 p.m., A.S.I. Manjit Singh, in the company of Sub-Inspector K.I.P. Singh, S.I. Kartar Singh, ASI Baldev Singh and some constables, raided his house and also searched the houses of Dalip Singh, SatPal and Sanjogta, but nothing was recovered from any of those houses. In spite of this, he further stated that all the four of them were taken to Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh and detained there for the night till the next evening i.e. up to 7.30 p.m. when this case was foisted upon him and three other cases were foisted on the said three persons. It has also been stated by him that the said Dalip Singh has since been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and he has tendered Ex. DA, certified copy of the judgment dated 5-11-1986.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court mainly on the ground that the provisions of the Act are mandatory and there is no evidence on the file to show that any of the said provisions has been complied with. He has further vehemently urged that the presence of Mohan Singh (P.W.5) is most doubtful and has pointed out that no person from public, present at the bus stop, was j