The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of evidence in drug-related cases; failure to do so results in reasonable doubt and acquittal.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant appeal is directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 18.11.2019, upon CIS No.NDPS 817/2016, by the learned Judge Special Court, Jalandhar, wherethrough in respect of a charge drawn against the accused qua an offence punishable under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against the accused-appellants. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order, drawn on 22.11.2019, the learned trial Judge concerned, imposed upon, the convicts both sentence(s) of imprisonment as well as sentence(s) of fine, but in the hereinafter extracted manner:

2. The period of detention undergone by the convicts, during the investigations, and, trial of the case, was, in terms of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., rather ordered to be set off, from the above imposed sentence(s) of imprisonment.

3. The accused-convicts become aggrieved from the above drawn verdict of conviction, besides also, becomes aggrieved from the consequent therewith sentences of imprisonment, and, of fine as became imposed, upon them, by the learned convicting Court concerned, and, hence have chosen to institute there against the instant criminal appeal, before this Court.

Factual Background and Investigation proceedings

4. The genesis of the prosecution case, becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Ex. PW-5 is assigned. The narrations carried in Ex.P-5, are that the police party headed by ASI Amarjit Singh had apprehended the aforesaid accused Amandeep Singh and Inderjit Singh, when they were found cultivating opium poppy plants weighing 182 Kilograms, without any permit or licence on dated 05.04.2016, in the area of village Dalla, Jalandhar falling within the jurisdictional limit of Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar. Thereafter, after completion of investigation and after presentation of challan, both the present accused Amandeep Singh and Inderjit Singh were put to trial for the aforesaid offence under Sections 16 / 17 of the Act, in the present case before the learned Committal Court concerned.

Trial Proceedings

5. The learned trial Judge concerned, made an objective analysis of the incriminatory material, adduced before him. Resultantly, he proceeded to draw charge against the accused, for an offence punishable under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. The afore drawn charge was put to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and, claimed trial.

6. In proof of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, and, thereafter the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, closed the prosecution evidence. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial Judge concerned, drew proceedings, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., but thereins, the accused pleaded innocence, and, claimed false implication. The accused also chose to adduce defence evidence, and three witnesses were led into the witness box.

7. As above stated, the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to convict the accused for the charge (supra), as became drawn against them, and, also as above stated, proceeded to, in the hereinabove manner, impose the sentence(s) of imprisonment, as well as of fine, upon the convicts.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants

8. The learned Senior counsel for the aggrieved convicts-appellants has argued before this Court, that the impugned verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith order of sentence, require an interference. He supports the above submission