Point of Law:
Non compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act which lays down that whenever a person makes any arrest or search under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior, this Court finds that no such evidence is led by the prosecution in the present case during the trial that any report was ever submitted about the such arrest and seizure in compliance of the Section 57 to the superior officer.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Agni Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ravi Prakash Pandey and Sri Ram Adhar Ram, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

2. Both the aforementioned criminal appeals are being decided by a common judgment and order as these two appeals were heard together and have been filed against one and the same judgment and order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the Trial Court.

3. These two appeals have been filed by the accused appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 29.01.2018 passed by learned Special Judge (D.A.A. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Special Case No. 34 of 2015 (State Vs. Satendra Singh and another) convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 8/20 NDPS Act for ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulation that in case of non payment of the fine appellant will undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment.

4. In brief the prosecution story is that on 23.07.2015 Sub Inspector Mohd. Afzal along with his companion police constable Pradip Kumar while doing checking he met with SI Pankaj Kumar, Constable Manoj Kumar and Nand Lal of Police Station Civil Lines who were on checking duty. On a motorcycle No.U.P. 78 DK 8780 two persons came with two bags hanging on their backs from Shastri Chauraha towards railway station and seeing police team they began to turn their motorcycle back to Shastri Chauraha. At about 9:10 A.M. (morning) they were caught before LIC office. From their bags the police found charas (cannabis). In the bag of accused appellant Satyendra Singh there was 1.336 kgs of charas wrapped in five polythene (panni) packets and in the bag of Gajendra Singh there was 1.264 kgs. of charas in four round packets and one deflated packet. Out of both the packets two samples were prepared each weighing 30 Gms. Under NDPS Act case was lodged against them. Investigation was conducted and charge sheet was submitted in Court. The Special Court of NDPS Act took the cognizance of the offence.

5. On 16.12.2015 charges were framed against the accused appellants under Section 8/22 NDPS Act. The accused appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of the case from the side of prosecution as many as four witnesses were examined i.e. PW-1 Sub Inspector Mohd. Afzal, PW-2 Constable Pradip Kumar, PW-3, Constable Ravindra Singh and PW-4, SI Ram Babu Singh. Besides this, the following documents were presented before the learned Trial Court :-

1. Ext. Ka-1 (consent letter) ; Ext. Ka-2 (recovery memo); Ext. Ka-3 (chik report); Ext. Ka-4 (copy of GD); Ext. Ka-5 and Ka-6 (site plan), Ext. Ka-7 (charge sheet) and Ext. Ka-8 (report of Forensic Science Laboratory).

7. The accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused appellants have stated in defence that they were falsely implicated in this case.

8. The Trial Court after considering the prosecution evidence and considering the arguments of both the sides, convicted the accused appellants as mentioned aforesaid. Aggrieved by the conviction these present appeals have been filed.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and order is illegal, unwarranted and bad in the eyes of law. The sentence is too severe and the fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on the appellant is excessive. It is also argued that the alleged recovery of charas is planted by the police and imposition of the sentence is against the evidence on record. The prosecution story is not supported by independent witnesses and all the witnesses are police personnel. While making the search and recovery from the accused appellant compliance of relevant provisions of the NDPS Act was not ensured and done by the police party. Moreover, samples were not taken by the police from all the packets allegedly shown recovered from the accused. It was further argued by the learned counsel that no evidence has been produced by the prosecution about the safe keeping of