The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of reliable and consistent evidence in criminal cases, including the timely dispatch of samples, preparation of CFSL form at the spot, and the importance of material witness examination to reveal the truth.

Harbans Lal, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.9.2001/order of sentence dated 28.9.2001 rendered by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Panchkula, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant Basir Mohammad to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity the Act).

2. Shortly put, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 19.6.1999, ASI Karan Singh among other police officials happened to be present in the area of Nada Sahib in connection with crime checking and patrolling. After a short- while, Jagdish Sarpanch came there. He started chattering with the aforesaid ASI. In the meantime, the accused Basir Mohammad came at the spot. On catching sight of the police party, he made an endeavour to beat a retreat, which aroused suspicion in the mind of the aforesaid ASI, who intercepted the accused and apprised him of his right that if he requires, his search can be carried out in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. He opted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. On receipt of the message, DSP Jagparvesh Dahiya arrived at the spot. On his directions, the aforementioned ASI carried out the search of the bag, which yielded charas. When weighed, it came to 600 grams, out of which two samples each weighing 25 grams were drawn and converted into parcels. The remainder was also made into parcel. All the parcels were sealed with seal KS and JD and seized vide recovery memo alongwith the bag. Ruqa was sent to the police station. On its basis formal FIR was registered. The aforesaid ASI prepared the rough site plan showing the place of recovery, arrested the accused alongwith the case property and the witnesses and produced the accused alongwith the case property and the witnesses before Mukesh Kumar SI/SHO, who after verification affixed his own seal MK on the said parcels. On receipt of the report from Forensic Science Laboratory and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused.

3. The accused was charged under Section 20 of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

4. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 HC Partap Singh, PW2 ASI Hari Ram, PW3 DSP Jag Parvesh, PW4 SI/SHO Mukesh Kumar, PW5 ASI Karan Singh, Investigating Officer, PW6 UGC Ram Chander and closed its evidence by tendering the Forensic Science Laboratorys report Ex.PJ.

5. When examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence. He did not lead evidence in defence.

After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on the record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he has preferred this appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and circumspection.

6. Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant making a short shrift of his arguments canvassed at the bar that (a) there is delay of 15 days in sending the sample parcels to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis; (b) Form M 29 was not prepared at the spot nor deposited in the malkhana; (c) the so-called independent witness Jagdish Sarpanch, to whom the seal was allegedly entrusted after use, has not been produced at the trial, with the result, primarily the accused has been deprived of his valuable right to cross-examine him, secondly, in the absence of his cross- examination, how it can be ascertained that the seal was returned by him after deposit of the sample