Compliance with Sections 50 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is not mandatory in cases of chance recovery of contraband articles and a report of arrest and seizure made in the daily diary report is sufficient compliance with Section 57.

S.C.Malte, J.

1. The accused was prosecuted and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on the charge under Section 18 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 24.12.1985 while the police party was on patrolling duty, it happened to spot the appellant-accused. They found that the movements of the accused were suspicious inasmuch as he retraced his steps on seeing the police party. The police party, therefore, accosted him. On search of his bag, it transpired that the bag contained 1 Kg and 950 gms of opium wrapped in a glazed paper. The opium was weighed and duly sealed. Accused was taken in custody and he was brought to the police station. At the police station, a report was made. On the basis of that report, F.I.R. was recorded and registered on the same day at about 7.00 p.m. The arrest of the accused and the attachment of the opium had taken place at about 6.40 p.m. on the same day.

3. The prosecution led the evidence of two of the police officials forming the patrolling party. Besides that, formal evidence in the form of affidavits was led to link up the formal part of the investigation. The sample of the opium which was extracted at the time of seizure itself, was sent to the Chemical Analyst. His report confirmed the fact that it was opium.

4. After investigation, the police put the challan against the accused. After the evidence led by the prosecution was over, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defence by the accused in general was that he was wrongly apprehended at the bus stand and thereafter these policemen demanded illegal gratification from him in order to let him off. Since he did not give that gratification he was falsely booked for the offence.

5. The trial Judge considered the evidence. He did not find favour wit the stand taken by the accused. Consequently, he convicted the accused under the Sections mentioned above and sentenced him to R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default, R.I. for two years. Against that judgment of conviction dated 4.9.1986, this appeal was preferred.

6. Mr. R.S. Sihota, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to argue the appeal on behalf of the accused. He submitted that the place where the accused was apprehended, is a congested area and, therefore, it was expected of the prosecution to get some independent witnesses also. It was further submitted that the testimony of these two police officials does not inspire confidence inasmuch as it is not supported by some independent witnesses and there are certain discrepancies in their evidence also. It was further contended that there was serious lacuna of non-compliance of Sections 50 and 57 of the N.D.P. & S. Act.

7. On behalf of the State, the Deputy Advocate General, Punjab submitted that the Patrolling Party spotted the accused per chance and it was a chance recovery of opium. It was, therefore, submitted that the compliance of Section 50 was rendered redundant in such case. It was also submitted that the other compliance under the provisions of NDP&S Act has been performed and there is no lacuna in the investigation. Regarding the discrepancies in the evidence of these two constables, it was submitted that the testimony cannot be discarded simply because they happen to be police officials. It was submitted that the area where the accused was apprehended is a little away from the shopping complex which was about 100 yards away.

8. I have heard the counsel for both the sides. With the help of the counsel, I read the evidence of PW.1 Constable Gurmel Singh and PW.2 ASI Amar Singh. Both these witnesses consistently stated that on 24.12.1985 at about 5.30 P.M. they arrived at a place known as Bhai Wala Chowk. There they were posted as a patrolling party. They further testified that they saw the accused approaching and found that the accused started retracing his st