The necessity of complying with statutory requirements for personal search, preservation of case property, and the production of untampered case property in court as primary evidence to prove the charge.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The learned Special Judge, Patiala through a verdict drawn on 02.12.2017, upon Sessions Case No.10 of 21.02.2017, made a verdict of conviction, upon, the convict qua charges drawn against him, under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and, thereafter through a separate sentencing order, drawn on 02.12.2017, proceeded to sentence the convict to rigorous imprisonment extending upto a term of 10 years, and, also imposed, upon him a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, besides in default of payment of fine, he sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. The convict becomes aggrieved from the verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence (supra), as became imposed upon him, by the learned Convicting Court, and, is led to institute thereagainst, the instant appeal before this Court.

3. The investigating officer concerned, after apprehending the convict- accused at the crime site, caused recoveries of COREX, besides of LOMOTIL tablets, from the polythene bag lying in a black colour polythene bag, as, held in the right hand of the convict. On counting the recovered bottles make COREX, they were found to be 15, and, each bottle was found to be bearing manufacture date May 2016, and, expiry date October 2017. Moreover on counting the recovered intoxicant strips of LOMOTIL, they were found to be 9 in number, and, each strip was found to be containing, 60 tablets, and, total number thereof was found to be 540 tablets, besides, each strip was found to be bearing the manufacturing date January 2016, and, expiry date June 2018. The above made recoveries were kept in the same polythene bags, wherefroms they were retrieved, and, also at the crime site, the investigating officer concerned, proceeded to prepare cloth parcels of the seizure. The cloth parcel was sealed with seal impression IS.

4. The above recovery was, as unfolded in Ex. PW-2/B hence effected, at the crime site,.

5. The accused was arrested through memo embodied in Ex.PW-2/D. Through a memo drawn in Ex.PW-2/E, the investigating officer concerned, made a personal search of the convict, and, resultantly the recoveries as detailed therein became effected. Subsequently, the investigating officer concerned, caused production of the seizure, as made, at the crime site, before the SHO of the police station concerned, and, through a memo drawn in Ex.PW-2/F, and, in Ex.PW-2/G, at the police station concerned, the SHO after properly checking the case property attested the same with his seal impression bearing superscription GS. The FIR bearing No.62 of 01.09.2016 was registered at the police station concerned, after a ruqa being sent there from the crime site through a police official, by the investigating officer concerned.

6. Ex.PW-2/L signatured by the Judicial Magistrate concerned, and, contents whereof are extracted hereinafter, do on their perusal reveal, that during the course of preparation of the inventory with respect to the seizure rather the apposite seizure(s) becoming sealed with seal impression bearing superscription HS, and, also its perusal reveals that, the remaining case property appertaining to COREX, and, LOMOTIL becoming enclosed in separate case property parcels. Through Ex.PW-2/I, a parcel containing one bottle COREX, and, another parcel containing 20 tablets of LOMOTIL, became sent through Head Constable Ravinder Kumar No.1303/GRP, to the FSL Phase-4, Mohali, for the makings of analyses thereons. The FSL concerned, made thereons its opinion, opinion whereof, is borne in Ex.PW-2/N. A perusal of Ex.PW-2/N, unfolds that on examination of the stuff inside the cloth parcels concerned, an opinion being formed by the examiner concerned, that each of the parcels rather containing the prohibited psychotropic substance(s).