Strict compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, including Section 52-A and Section 50, is essential for establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.01.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, in FIR No.124 dated 28.12.2012, under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years under Section 22 (c) of the NDPS Act with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that on 28.12.2012, a police party headed by ASI Lakhbir Singh was patrolling the area of village Alipur, Ratta Gudda, etc and had just reached ahead of Ratta Gudda when they noticed one person coming carrying a polythene bag. On seeing the police party, he threw away the polythene bag and tried to move backwards. The police party apprehended him and after disclosing his identity, he handed over the polythene bag to the Investigating Officer and confessed that there were intoxicating tablets in it. On checking, 08 packets of Microlit tablets, each packet containing 100 tablets, were recovered. The recovered contraband was put in a plastic container and was sealed with the seal bearing impression ‘LS’ and the sealed parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PI. Form 29 was also filled at the spot. Thereafter, a ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which a formal FIR was registered. After completion of the usual formalities of investigation, the challan was presented against the accused/appellant.

3. After making due compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case for the commission of offence punishable under Section 22 of the NDPS Act was made out. The accused/appellant was charge-sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses and closed its evidence.

5. Accused, in his defence evidence, examined only one witness namely Sadhu Singh, his father.

6. Learned trial Court after examining the evidence adduced on file and hearing arguments of both sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner as stated above.

CONTENTIONS

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited the attention of the Court to the testimony of Investigating Officer ASI Lakhbir Singh (PW3) who duly admitted to the area of recovery being a thoroughfare with residential houses around. It was argued that in spite of it being a public place, no independent witness has been joined in the investigation. It was highlighted that Lakhbir Singh (Investigating Officer), who has conducted the entire investigation, is also the complainant in this case which is contrary to law.

Further, there is a delay of five days in sending the sample for chemical examination where the same should have been deposited within the prescribed period of 72 hours. Hence, the delay in depositing the sample is fatal to the case of the prosecution as there is every possibility of tampering with it. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for acquittal of the appellant.

8. On the other hand, learned State counsel has supported the case of the prosecution by arguing that the appellant was found in possession of 08 packets of Microlit tablets, each packet containing 100 tablets, from him. He further argued that all the procedural safeguards provided under the Act were duly complied with. The appellant was found in possession of a huge quantity of Microlit tablets which falls within ‘commercial quantity’ and the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. Hence, the learned State counsel has prayed for dismissal of the present appe