The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for link evidence and adherence to formalities under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, to safeguard the interest of the accused and establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10-01-2007 passed by Special Sessions Judge/Sessions Judge, Almora in Special S.T. No. 10 of 2006, State Vs. Ram Singh whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred' as Act, 1985) & sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of 1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused/appellant would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. Brief facts leading to the prosecution case are that on 24-02-2006 at about 17:30 hrs. the police patrolling party was on the patrolling duty. When the police patrolling party reached near Mohaan Barrier, they started checking the vehicle at the spot. When they were busy in checking the vehicle, they saw a person hanging plastic bag on his shoulder. Seeing the police patrolling party coming over there, he started moving back from there. On suspicion, the police patrolling party immediately apprehended him. After being apprehended, the accused/appellant disclosed his name as Ram Singh S/o Dashrath and admitted that he was having Ganja in the bag which he was holding on his shoulder. He was informed about his legal right of, being searched before the Gazetted officer or the Magistrate as provided under Act, 1985. The accused/appellant stated that he would not like to be searched before the Magistrate or the Gazetted officer. He stated that as the patrolling party had already apprehended him, so they could make his search well at the spot. On the said statement of the accused/appellant, the police tried to take the public witnesses. As no public witnesses was available or ready to be witness of the recovery, search was taken by Chandra Singh PWI in presence of other police patrolling party members. He found that the accused/appellant was having 20 Kgs. Ganja in his bag which he was holding on his shoulder. He was not having licence to keep the said Ganja. The accused was apprehended and recovery articles were kept in two separate bundles. In one bundle at about 100 grams of Ganja was taken and sealed for being sent to the F.S.L. for chemical examination and rest of the seized contraband was wrapped in a separate bundle and sealed at the spot and thereafter recovery memo was prepared at the spot. Thereafter, the accused/appellant and the seized contraband was taken to the police station and a report was lodged at the police station. The said contraband was also handed over to the police station. The contraband was sent to the chemical examiner and the report of the chemical examiner (Ex.Ka8) reveals that the contents of the seized articles were Ganja. The matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer and after completing the investigation, charge sheet (Ex.Ka.7) was submitted before the court.

3. After submission of charge sheet, the accused/appellant was charged u/s 20/ 22 of Act, 1985. The accused/appellant denied the charge levelled against him and claimed his trial.

4. The prosecution in support of its case examined S.I. Chandra Singh Bist PW1, Const. Kedar Singh PW2 and Kirti Kumar PW3. Both the witnesses S.I. Chandra Singh PWI and Const. Kedar Singh PW2 were on patrolling duty on the date of the occurrence and apprehended the accused/appellant alongwith the recovered article near Mohaan Barrier. S.I. Kirti Kumar PW3 is the Investigating Officer of the case.

5. The accused/appellant was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and he has pleaded not guilty to the offence. The accused/appellant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

6. The learned Special Sessions Judge after appreciation of the evidence and hearing the parties convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as indicated above.

7. I have heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Goel, Amicus Curiae for the accused/appellant; Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for responden1/State; and perused the record.

8. Now, it i