The importance of corroboration of evidence and compliance with procedural requirements in cases involving narcotic substances.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.4.1995, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide which it acquitted the accused (now respondent), for the offence, punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (hereinafter called as the Act only).

2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 1.11.1994, Mohinder Singh. ASI, of CIA Staff, alongwith other police of officials, was present near Bus Stand. Panipat, when the accused was seen coming out of the same (Bus Stand), carrying a bag, on his shoulder, who on seeing the police party, tried to slip away, but was apprehended on suspicion. On feeling smell of charas, Mohinder Singh, ASI, suspected that some narcotic substance, in the bag, being carried by the accused, was lying. A legal notice, in terms of Section 50 of the Act. was served upon the accused, as to whether, he wanted the search of the bag, to be conducted, in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The accused opted that he wanted the search of the bag to be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. O.K. Bhardwaj. DSP, was sent a message, who came to the spot. He also served a notice, in terms of Section 50 of the Act, upon the accused. He directed Mohinder Singh, ASI. to search the bag. being carried by the accused. On such directions, Mohinder Singh, ASI. conducted the search of the bag, being carried by the accused, as a result whereof, 2 Kgs. 50 grams charas was recovered therefrom. The accused could not produce any permit or licence, for keeping the same in possession. A sample of 50 grams was taken out of the same, and the remaining charas, was put into an empty plastic container. The sample, and the plastic container, containing the remaining charas, were converted into parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof. formal Fl R was registered. Rough site plan of the place of recovery, was prepared. The accused was arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.

3. On appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section 20 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Kehar Singh, HC (PW-1), Azad Singh, SI (PW 2) Om Parkash, SI (PW3), Surinder Kumar (PW-4), Dhan Raj,HC (PW-5), Mohinder Singh, ASI (PW-6), the Investigating Officer. and D.K. Bhardwaj, DSP (PW-7). The Public Prosecutor for the State, tendered into evidence, Ex.PX, affidavit of Siri Krishan, Constable, Ex.PY, affidavit of Ishwar Singh, MHC, and Ex.PZ, report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Thereafter, he 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. He pleaded false implication. He, however, did not lead any evidence, in his defence.

6. After hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, acquitted the accused (now respondent), as stated hereinbefore.

7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of acquittal, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant-State of Haryana.

8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

9. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the notice, in terms of Section 50 of the Act, served upon the accused, was partial. He further submitted that the trial Court was also wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the case of the prosecution was doubtful, as the i