The judgment emphasizes the importance of following statutory safeguards and procedural requirements in drug-related cases, highlighting the need for independent witnesses during recovery, timely forensic analysis, and compliance with statutory provisions.

Sham Sunder, J

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.07.2001 and the order of sentence dated 24.07.2001, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, 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 one year, for having been found in possession of 1 KG 100 grams opium milk, which now falls within the ambit of non-commercial quantity, without any permit or licence.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 13.03.2000 ASI Balwant Singh, along-with some other police officials, apprehended the accused at Vitas Karma Chowk, Sirsa, when he was moving under suspicious circumstances, with a bag, resting on his shoulder. The search of the bag, being carried by him, was conducted, in the presence of Mr. Mahinder Singh Malik, Dy. Superintendent of Police ( HQ ), who was called to the spot, by sending a message, as a result whereof, 1 KG 100 grams opium milk, was recovered therefrom. A sample of 100 grams of opium milk, was taken out of the recovered contraband, and the remaining opium milk, was kept in a separate container. The sample and the container, containing the remaining opium milk, 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, the FIR was recorded. The site plan was prepared. The accused was arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. 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, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial.

4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Rattan Singh, H.C., (PW-1), Ramji Lal, C., (PW-2), Mohinder Singh Malik, Dy. Supt. Of Police, (PW-3), Balwant Singh, ASI, ( PW-4 ) and Chander Singh, Inspector ( PW-5 ). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, 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. It was stated by him, that the contraband was lying abandoned, at the bus stop, which was planted against him. It was further stated by him, that the Dy. Superintendent of Police, was neither informed by the Investigating Officer, nor he did come to the spot. It was further stated by him, that the signatures of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, were obtained in his office subsequently.

5-A. In his defence, the accused examined Gurtej Singh, DW1. Thereafter, he closed the defence evidence.

6. After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore.

7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant.

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

9. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, vehemently, contended that though the alleged recovery was effected at a very busy and crowded place, surrounded by a number of shops, yet neither an independent witness was joined, nor an effort, was made by the Investigating Officer, to join him. He further submitted that, on account of this reason, the prosecution case became doubtful. The submission