The prosecution must adhere to the formalities and safeguards provided under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and discrepancies in the handling and custody of seized articles can impact the case.

Since both the appeals have arisen out of the common judgment and order dated 19-12-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ii F. T. C. , Udham Singh Nagar in ST. No. 86 of 2003 & 87 of 2003, therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of together by this common judgment. These appeals have been preferred by the accused/ ap pellants against the aforementioned judg ment and order whereby the accused / ap pellants have been convicted and sen tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years u/s 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (here inafter referred as Act, 1985) and a fine of Rs. 1,00,0007 -. In default of payment of fine, the accused/appellants would fur ther undergo one year R. I.

2. Brief facts as emerged from the record are that on 21-06-2003, S. S. I. D. L. Verma alongwith S. I. R. A. Singh and other police officials were in search of the accused involved in Case Crime No. 128/ 02 u/s 395/3971. PC. and Case Crime No. 263/02 u/s 396/120-B I. P. C. When the police patrolling party reached at Chikhaghat Bridge, they saw that two per sons were coming from the side of Sisaikhera having bags in their hands. When they saw the police party, they started to run back. The police party had reason to believe on seeing them in sus picious condition. The police apprehended them at about 9:15 a. m. on 21/06/2003 near the Chikhaghat Bridge. When they were interrogated as to why they were running after seeing the police party, both of them stated that they are having the charas in their possession. They were in formed about their right of being searched before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Of ficer. The accused/appellants stated S. S. I. D. L. Verma that their search need not be made in presence of any Magistrate or Gazetted officer and the police patrolling party could very well make their search. When the search of the bag of the accused/ appellant Kernail Singh was made 3 kgs. Charas was found in his bag whereas from the bag of the accused/appellant Nazar Singh 3 kgs. charas was found. The ac cused/appellants could not show any li cence to the police party for keeping the said contraband. A sample of 200 grams of charas from each recovered articles was taken by the police for being sent it to Chemical Examiner, Agra. The rest of the charas so recovered from the possession of the accused/appellants was sealed at the spot and recovery memo thereof was prepared at the spot. The accused/appel lants were apprehended and thereafter they were taken to the police station and case was registered against them. The recovered article for the accused/appel lants was given to the Moharir of the police station. The information of the ar rest of the accused/appellants was sent to the higher officials. The matter was inves tigated by the Investigating Officer and separate chargesheets were submitted to that effect against the accused/appellants.

3. After submission of chargesheets, the accused/appellants were charged u/s 18/20/22 of Act, 1985. The accused/ap pellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed their trial.

4. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as four witnesses. D. L. Verma PW1 is the S. S. I, posted at police station Sitarganj, Udham Singh Nagar. On the date of the arrest of the accused/appellants, he alongwith other police officials was in search of the ac cused persons in case Crime No. 128 of 2002 u/s 395/397 I. P. C. R. A. Singh PW2 is the witness of arrest and seizer. S. I, M. R Singh PW3 is the Investigating Officer of this case. Constable Satnam Singh PW4 is the formal witness.

5. The accused-appellants were exam ined u/s 313 Cr. P. C. and they have pleaded not guilty to the offence. The accused / appellants further stated that the witnesses were telling lie and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The accused / appellants had not given any evidence in their defence.

6. The learned Special Judge/sessions Judge, after appreciation of the evide

Click Here to Read the rest of this document