IMPORTANT POINT
Contraband--Search and Seizure--Report to officer superior--Provisions are directory in nature--It does not mean that the same should not be complied with.

Sham Sunder. J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 06.03.1997, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which it convicted the accused (now appellant), for the offence, punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to be as the 'Act' only) and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment, for a period of six months.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 02.08.1997 Sub Inspector Sikattar Singh, SHO, Police Station, Jagraon was on routine patrol duty, and was going in the illaqa on Govt. vehicle in the company of police officials. He held a nakabandi on narrow bridge of village Akhara, where Head Constable Vijay Kumar and other police officials were associated with the police party. At about 7.00 PM, the accused came from the side of Jagraon. He was apprehended on suspicion. On search of the cloth bag, being carried by him, one killo gram opium was recovered. He could not produce any permit or licence for keeping in possession the opium. Two samples of 10 grams, were separated, and the remaining opium was put into the same bag. The sample and the remaining opium were converted into separate parcels, and the same were taken into police possession. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, the FIR was registered. The accused was arrested. The site plan was prepared. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.

3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Section 18 of the Act, was framed against the accused, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial.

z4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Rajinder Singh, ASI, (PW-1), Sikattar Singh, Sub Inspector, (PW-2), the investigating officer and Birbhai Singh, Head Constable, (PW-3). Thereafter, he closed the prosecution evidence.

5. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. 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 defence.

6. The Additional Sessions Ludhiana, Judge, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.

7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, the instant appeal was filed by the accused/appellant.

8. The appeal was fixed for regular hearing, but none appeared, on behalf of the appellant, despite due notice.

9. I have heard Sh. O.P. Dabla, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.

10. In this appeal, one of the grounds, taken up by the appellant, was that there was a delay of 36 days, in sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner, which remained unexplained. The alleged recovery was effected on 02.08.1994, whereas the sample of the opium, was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner, Patiala on 07.09.1994. No explanation, whatsoever, was furnished, as to why the sample was not sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner, Patiala, for about 36 days. Had any explanation been furnished, the matter would have been considered, in the light thereof, but in the absence of any explanation, having been furnished, in this regard, the Court cannot coin any of its own. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, [2006(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1006] : 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 611, there was a delay of 15 days, in sending the sample to the office of the Chemical Examiner. Under these circumstances, it was held that the possibility of tampering with the sample, could not be ruled out, and the link evidence was incomplete. In the instant case too, the possibility of