The judgment established that violations of procedural requirements under the NDPS Act, including the failure to follow search and seizure procedures, can render the prosecution's case untenable.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction dated 06.10.2015, vide which appellant-accused was held guilty of offence punishable under Section 22 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') and order of sentence dated 15.10.2015, vide which the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1.00 lac and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2. This appeal is filed through legal aid counsel appointed by the High Court Legal Services Authority and was admitted on 25.05.2016. The appellant is in custody and as per custody certificate dated 03.02.2018, he has undergone about 02 years and 06 months of actual sentence.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.09.2012, SI Barma Singh along with his co-officials HC Mohan Singh, HC Swaran Singh etc. were present near Amar Hospital, Sector-70, Mohali, where they had laid a barrier for the purpose of checking of suspected persons and vehicles. One Indigo car bearing registration No.CH03-3P-2577 of blue colour was seen coming from the side of Sector-69, Mohali. A signal was given to stop it and checked the same. The driver of the car told his name as Jagtar Singh @ Lucky i.e. accused-appellant. On making the search of the car, underneath the driver seat, a small bag was found and on opening the same, 11 vials of Rexcof Syrup and 40 strips of Spasmocip Plus capsuls were recovered. From the recovered contraband, he had taken out two vials each of Rexcof syrup and 5 strips each as sample. The samples were put into parcels and sealed with seal BS and remaining 7 vials of Rexcof Syrup and 30 strips of Spasmocip Plus capsules were also sealed in bulk parcels with his seal BS. Form No.29 was prepared and the seal BS was also affixed on the same. Thereafter, the sample parcels and bulk parcels along with Form No.29 were taken into possession and the same were attested by HC Mohan Singh and sample seal was handed over to him. The car of the accused was also taken into possession by preparing a separate memo and it was attested by HC Mohan Singh. Thereafter, he sent ruqa/written information to the police station through Constable Kamaldeep Singh for registration of a case and a formal FIR was registered by ASI Sartaj Singh. He arrested the appellant vide arrest memo signed by him and attested by HC Mohan Singh and then he conducted the personal search of the accused vide personal search memo, in which Rs.500/- and a watch was recovered and the same was also attested by HC Mohan Singh. Thereafter, he prepared rough site plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He along with car of the accused and the case property returned back to the police station and produced them before the SHO/Inspector Dharam Pal, who verified the facts and affixed his seal DP over the parcels of case property of the sample parcels and bulk parcels and also affixed seal impression DP on Form No.29 and directed that the case property be deposited with MHC Sudarshan Kumar in his presence with seals intact on the same.

4. On the next date i.e. 23.09.2012, he had taken the entire case property from MHC Sudarshan Kumar and produced the same along with accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali and gave an application, on which the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order that the case property be deposited in the judicial malkhana. However, he deposited the case property with MHC Sudarshan Kumar. Thereafter, the sample parcels were sent to CFSL and on receiving the report of Analyst/Chemical Examiner, the challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the trial Court.

5. The trial Court charge-sheeted the accused under Section 22 of NDPS Act vide order dated 12.12.2012, to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution, in its evidence, examined PW1 ASI Mohan Singh (who was HC at the time of recove