The mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act must be strictly complied with during the search and seizure of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and the prosecution must provide cogent, reliable, and satisfactory evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. This is the Criminal Appeal and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 15.7.1997 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana who convicted the appellant Gurnam Singh under Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and the appellant was further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution can be described in the following manner :-

3. Gurnam Singh appellant faced the criminal trial on the allegations that on 14.12.1994 at about noon time in the area of village Sattowal he was allegedly found in possession of opium weighing 500 gms. without any permit or licence and thus he allegedly committed an offence U/S 18 of the NDPS Act.

4. As per the prosecution on that day Police Party headed by ASI Jasmer Singh (PW-2) Incharge P.P. Bassian alongwith Head Constable Karamjit Singh (PW-1) and others was going on patrol on bicycles from village Bassian to village Jhodran. PW Surinder Singh son of Ranjit Singh resident of Akhara was also going to village Bassian and he was associated in the Police Party near the crossing of the road leading to village Jhodran. At about 12 noon when the Police Party reached at T-point in the area of village Sattowal the accused was seen coming from the opposite direction. On seeing the Police Party, he tried to take turn towards village Sattowal. On the basis of suspicion, he was apprehended by the Thanedar. Accused at that time was carrying a plastic bag in his hand. The Thanedar told the accused that he wanted to search the bag and whether the latter wanted to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Statement Ex. PA of the accused was recorded. It was read over and explained to the accused who signed the same and was attested by Karamjit Singh HC and Surinder Singh aforesaid witnesses. Thereafter, ASI Jasmer Singh PW-2 took the search of the bag and found opium in it. On weighment, it came into 500 grams. The Thanedar separated 20 grams of opium from the bulk and made two sealed parcels each containing 10 grams of opium with his own seal bearing inscription JS. The remaining bulk of the opium and the entire case property was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PB attested by the said witnesses. Accused could not produce any permit or licence for the possession of the opium. Ruqa Ex. PE was sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case and on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PE/1 was recorded in the Police Station on 14.12.94 vide DDR No. 13. Jamatalashi memo Ex.PC after arrest of the appellant was prepared. It was attested by HC Karamjit Singh and independent witness Surinder Singh. The Thanedar also prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery. On the same day, the appellant was produced before the Inspector Ajit Singh along with the case property who resealed the case property with his own seal bearing inscription AS. Thereafter the case property was deposited in the Malkhana with the Moharrir Head Constable.

5. On 15.12.94 case property was again produced before the Illaqa Magistrate who ordered the police to keep it in a safe custody.

6. Sample of the opium was sent to Chemical Examiner who vide his report Ex. PG declared the contents of the sample as opium and on completion of the investigation of this case, accused was challaned under section 18 of the NDPS Act in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate who supplied the copies of documents to the accused as required under the law and vide commitment order dated 24.5.1995 committed the appellant to the Court of Sessions.

7. On 7.7.95 the trial Court framed the charge under Section 18 of the NDPS Act against the appellant. It was read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8. To prove the charge, prosecution had