The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of flawless investigation and the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt in NDPS cases.

Jitendra Chauhan, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 20.07.2004, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), whereby, they have been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (for short, 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each along with default clause.

2. The brief facts of the present case as narrated in the opening paragraph of the impugned judgment, are reproduced as under:-

"Both the accused face trial for offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (hereinafter called the Act) on the allegations that on 14.10.2002 in the area of G.T. Road, Rajpura, they both were found in possession of three bags containing 106.500 gms of poppy husk, by the police party headed by SI Balkar Singh of CIA Staff, Rajpura.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.10.2002 SI Balkar Singh of CIA Staff Rajpura alongwith his police party was present in front of Focal Point where Bag Singh of village Darian met him and was joined in his police party. When he was having a talk with said Bag Singh, a vehicle TAT 713 bearing No.2D-147858K of Army colour came from Ambala Side. On seeing the police party, the driver of that vehicle i.e. the accused Gannu stopped the vehicle at some distance, while Uttam Singh was sitting with him on the adjoining seat. SI Balkar Singh told both of them of his intention to conduct the search of the vehicle and when he checked from behind, three bags were lying on seat. SI Balkar Singh suspected that these were carrying some contraband and gave option to the accused to get their search conducted before some Gazetted Officer of Magistrate. The accused vide memo Ex.PC and PC/1 agreed for their search to be conducted by SI Balkar Singh. On the search, all the three bags were found containing churra poppy heads, out of which two samples of 250 gm each were separated and put into parcel. On weighment, the remaining churra poppy heads came to be 35 kgs. Samples and the bags with remaining poppy husk were sealed with the seal bearing impression BS. Sample seal Ex.P.1 was also prepared. The seal after use was handed over to PW Bag Singh. Case property was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PD. Vehicle was also taken into possession. On personal search of the accused Gannu Rs. 150/- and from accused Udham Rs. 50/- were recovered and taken into possession vide memos Ex.PE and Ex.PE/1, respectively. Both the accused were supplied grounds of their arrest vide memos Ex.PF and Ex.PF/1. Ruqa Ex.PA was sent to the Police Station whereupon formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was recorded. Site plan of the place of recovery Ex.PG was prepared. On return to the police station, case property and the accused were produced before SHO Jai Kishan of Police Station City Rajpura, who after verifying the factum of recovery put his own seal bearing impression 'JK' on the case property and the sample seal Ex.P.1. On the next day, case property and the accused were produced before Illaqa Magistrate. Vide report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PJ the sample was found to be that of churra poppy heads and after completion of investigation, the challan against the accused was presented in court."

3. The learned trial Court, after finding prima facie case against the accused, charged them for commission of offence punishable under Sections 15, of the NDPS Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution examined SI Jai Kishan as PW-1; ASI Bhinder Singh as PW-2; ASI Baldev Singh as PW-3; SI Balkar Singh as PW-4; Constable Sunil Kumar as PW-5 and ASI Raunak Singh as PW-6.

5. During their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellants denied the p