The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of compliance with statutory instructions and the need for substantial compliance with NDPS Act provisions, emphasizing the impact of non-compliance on the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 13.10.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar in case bearing FIR No.67 dated 03.06.2014 registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) registered at Police Station Mehta, District Amritsar whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and vide order of sentence dated 21.10.2016 he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. In brief, the version put forth by prosecution is that on 03.06.2014, while being on patrolling duty, ASI Sawinder Singh (Investigating Officer) along with other police officials was present at Dhardeo Wadala Link Road, where police party noticed that one person, who was coming on foot from western side, got perplexed after looking at the police party and started walking briskly in opposite direction. He threw a polythene bag on the ground which he was carrying in his hand. Thereafter, ASI Sawinder Singh apprehended him on the basis of suspicion and on being asked, he disclosed his name as Gurpreet Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh. Before checking that polythene bag, which was thrown by accused-Gurpreet Singh on the ground, ASI tried to join an independent witness but no one came forward. Thereafter, Gurpreet Singh opened the said polythene bag in the presence of ASI Sawinder Singh, which contained intoxicant powder. A weighing machine was arranged by ASI Sawinder Singh and after taking a sample of 10 grams from that intoxicant powder in a plastic container, which was converted into parcel, weight of remaining contraband was measured as 90 grams. The said contraband was put in another plastic container and converted into bulk parcel. Both the parcels were sealed by ASI Sawinder Singh with his seal bearing impression ‘SS’. Form M-29 was also prepared at the spot and the case property was taken into possession while preparing a recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the police station through Constable Tejinder Singh on the basis of which formal FIR was registered and further investigation was started.

3. On return to the police station the entire case property was produced before officiating SHO Kuldip Singh. After verification, said SHO put the accused behind bars. Both, the sample and bulk parcel, were checked by the SHO and then he affixed his own seal bearing impression ‘KS’ thereon. On next day, accused was produced before the Illaqa Magistrate for authentication of the case property. Inventory as required under Section 52-A of NDPS Act, was also prepared. On 04.06.2014, SHO Sukhwinder Singh had given both the sample and bulk parcel to ASI Sawinder Singh Investigating Officer, who deposited the same in judicial malkhana. On 09.06.2014, SI Shaminderjit Singh handed over one sample parcel of 10 gms of intoxicant powder sealed with impression ‘SS’ and ‘KS’ along with form M-29 and sample seal to HC Kuljit Singh for depositing the same to the office of Chemical Examiner, Kharar, Punjab. Sample parcel was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner duly sealed with intact seal impressions ‘SS’ and ‘KS’ and thereafter report of Chemical Examiner was received, according to which, the said sample contained Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was prepared and presented in the court. As per Section 207 Cr.P.C., copies of documents as relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused free of costs.

4. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, commission of offence under Section 22 of the NDPS Act was made out against the accused and thus, he was charged accordingly. Contents of the charge were read over and explained to t