The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the integrity and handling of seized articles, as well as the importance of complying with legal provisions for search and seizure.

Mrs. SAROJBALA, J.

1. These appeals directed against the judgment and order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No. 2 Siddharath Nagar in Special Sessions Trial Nos. 35 of 2004 and 36 of 2004 whereby convicting the appellants for the offence under section 20(b)(ii)(c) of Narcotic. Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the N.D.P.S, Act) and sentencing each of them to R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs, one lac with default clause having arisen out of the one and same judgment are being decided together.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeals are:

On 7.10.2004 at 4.15 P.M., S.H.O. Rajiv Kumar Singh (P.W.1) the first informant along with constable driver. Baij Nath Yadav was going to Bahaini town in Government jeep No. U.P. 55A-0155. When he reached near P.W.D. guest house he received information-through informer about the presence of appellants with Charas in bags at the tea shop of Abdul Ajij situated in Bahami town Dihava Masjid/Madarsa Incharge outpost S.I. K.V. Tiwari was telephonically directed by the S.H.O. (P.W. 1) to reach at the spot with police force. The first informant tried to take public witnesses but they refused to associate: S.I. K.V. Tiwari (P.W.3) along with constables Sanjay Kumar Singh and Abdul Alim reached at the spot. On Seeing the police force appellants tried to run away with the bags but they were intercepted. On being inquired about the reason for fleeing away they made a disclosure about possession of Charas in the bags. The option was given by the police to the accused to get their bags searched by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate but they declined and consented for search to be carried by the police officials. With the consent of appellants their bags were searched at 5.30 P.M. From the Raksine bag of appellant Tara Buhadur 21 big and small rolls of Nepali wet Charus kept in a white polythene were recovered.

On search of white polythene bag (Jhola) of appellant Megraj Yadav 23 big and small rolls, one rounded in ball shape and some broken pieces of Nepali wet Charas kept in a white polythene .were recovered. The recovered Charas was weighed separately on balance which the police party was having in the kit. The quantity of Charas recovered from appellant Tara Bahadur was 2 kg and that of appellant Meghraj was 1.5 kg. 100 gm. Charas each was taken out from the Charas recovered from each of the appellant for sample and kept in two separate containers. The appellants were taken into custody. The Charas recovered from each of the appellant was sealed in the bags. Both the samples were sealed separately and specimen seal was prepared. The recovery memo (Ext. Ka 1) was prepared by constable Sanjay Kumar Singh at the dictation of first informant in torch and lantern light and a copy each was given to the appellants and their signatures were obtained in token of receipt of copies of recovery memo. The arrest, memos (Exts. Ka 2 and Ka 3) were prepared. The appellants alongwith sealed packets of recovered Charas, samples of Charas, recovery memo etc. were brought to the police station and crimes were registered on the basis of recovery memo.

3. The investigation was entrusted to the inspector Sant Saran Singh (P.W.4). The investigating officer visited the place of offence and prepared the site plan (Exts. Ka.5 and Ka 6). He interrogated the appellants. The samples of Charas through letters (Exts. Ka 9 and Ka 10) of C.J.M. Siddnarath Nagar were sent to Lucknow for chemical examination. The constable Ramji Gautam (P.W.5) carried the samples to Forensic Science Laboratory at Lucknow. The samples were tested and found to be of Charas. The chemical examination reports are (Ext. Ka 16 and Ka.17). After completion of all the necessary formalities the investigating officer submitted separate charge sheets against the appellants (Ext. Ka 7 and Ka 8).

After taking cognizance, both the appellants were separately charged for the offence under section 20-B