IMPORTANT POINT
Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not undermine a conviction for possession of narcotics if core facts remain consistent and credible police testimony is present.

JUDGMENT :

(Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. The case is taken up in the revised call.

2. This Criminal Appeal Under Section 374 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. First, Lucknow in S.T. No. 246 A of 1999 arising out Crime Number 362 of 1999: State vs. Smt. Manju, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 8C/21 N.D.P.S. Act to imprisonment for the period already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was apprehended near the house of one Kanhaiya in Lucknow with possession of 40 and 24 small packets (pudiyas) of smack (heroin) respectively. The prosecution alleged that the appellants were found in possession of these illegal substances without any legal authorization, thus committing an offense under the NDPS Act. The trial court, after considering the evidence, including the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (PWs), convicted the appellants. The trial court noted that although there were minor inconsistencies in the testimonies regarding the exact location of the arrest, the core facts remained consistent. The court also observed that the appellants failed to bring forth any credible defense against the charges.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits the appellant's counsel argued that the trial court erred in relying on contradictory evidence presented by the prosecution. The witnesses produced by the prosecution provided inconsistent statements, which the court failed to adequately scrutinize. The counsel highlighted that such contradictions should have created reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the appellant

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant's counsel contended that the prosecution's narrative was unnatural and not credible. It was argued that the sequence of events as presented by the prosecution did not align with normal human behavior or logic, thus casting further doubt on the case. The prosecution's failure to present a coherent and believable account of the events weakens their case against the appellant.

6. learned counsel for the appellant further submits that The alleged incident occurred near a highly populated area close to government offices. Despite this, the police failed to involve any gazetted officers during the arrest and seizure, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The counsel argued that this non-compliance with procedural law was a significant lapse that vitiates the entire case.

7. learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the immediate reporting of the incident to higher authorities was not done, as mandated by the NDPS Act. The delay in communication and the method of reporting raise serious questions about the integrity of the prosecution's case. The counsel argued that the failure to adhere to this statutory requirement further weakens the prosecution's case.

8. learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the police did not comply with the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that the accused be informed of their right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or magistrate. The failure to inform the appellant of this right and obtain their consent renders the search and seizure illegal, making the evidence inadmissible.

9. learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the arrest and seizure took place in a densely populated area, yet no independent witnesses were produced to corroborate the police's version of events. This absence of independent witnesses raises serious doubts about the legitimacy of the arrest and the subsequent recovery of contraband.

10. learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the police officers did not take their own personal search before conducting the search of the appellant, which is a procedural safeguard to en