The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strict compliance with procedural and evidentiary safeguards under the N. D. P. S. Act, emphasizing the need for clear evidence and lack of ambiguity in witness statements.

( 1 ) THIS is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order of the then special Judge, N. D. P. S. Act, Kanpur Dehat dated 4-1-2002 in Special Sessions Trial No. 98 of 1999 convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant under Sections 18/20 of the N. D. P. S. Act to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment.

( 2 ) I have heard Smt. Pratima Singh and agnipal Singh, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the first information report, allegations, the Station Officer, started from police station Gajner, district Kanpur dehat with a posse of police personnel vide g. D. No. 17 dated 1-8-1998 by official jeep for the search and arrest of some wanted criminals and was busy in the said work. On receiving an information from informer that Mathura Prasad Mishra, the appellant was selling charas from a room situated in his field in village Darauli. The information was received in village Rathigaon. The police party comprising of Station Officer bharat Singh Solanki, S. I. Shyam Veer singh and some constables proceeded for the above spot. The jeep was abandoned along with its driver in village Rathigaon, which was about 3 kilometers from the room where the accused was selling the charas. Before proceeding to the spot, the police party tried to procure the public witnesses, but nobody agreed to accompany them. The police party made the personal search to each other to ensure none of them had narcotic substance with any of them. The police party thereafter proceeded for the destination concealing themselves from public gaze. They reached the concerned room and concealed themselves by the southern wall. Soon after they saw a person running away from the room. They arrested the person at some 10-15 steps from the room at 2:30 p. m. His name was verified by them. The arrested person revealed his name to the police party as Mathura Prasad Mishra son of Rajaram mishra resident of village Darauli, police station Gajner, district Kanpur Dehat. He also revealed on enquiry the reason for his running away. According to the information given by him, he had charas, he smokes and also sells it. For this reason, suspecting the police presence, he ran out from the room. The policemen offered the accused whether he desired to give his search before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer. The accused replied that he knew that he is in possession of charas and the collection from the sale of the said charas, he has full faith in the Station Officer concerned so he can take his search. The public also arrived by then. They were asked to be witnesses in the case, but all of them declined to be so. The search of the accused was taken by the Station Officer himself. In the search, from the right side waist of his dhoti, a polyethylene bag was taken out. On examination, it was found to be a black colour narcotic (charas) weighing about 200 grams. Rs. 2919/- was also recovered in the notes of different denomination from a cotton bag hanging from his neck. The accused failed to produce any licence for the sale of the charas. After the recovery, the charas was sealed in the same polyethylene bag, which was further covered by a cotton piece. Seal was affixed by the station Officer. The sale sample was also prepared. The recovery memo was prepared by S. I. Shyam Veer Singh on the direction of the Station Officer. It was signed by the policemen who affected the arrest of the accused.

( 4 ) FROM the F. I. R. , it is not at all clear whether any sample, as provided under the act, was drawn at the spot. As a matter of fact there is nothing in the F. I. R. from which any such inference can be have by the Court even in the statement of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2. However, the chemical examiners report on record i. e. Exhibit Ka-3 shows that the sample contained in a match box wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document