Strict compliance with the provisions of the NDPS Act is necessary to rule out false implication of innocent individuals.

Appellant, by way of present appeal, is assailing the judgment and order dated 12-2-2009 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2007 whereby appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment for one year under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.

2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that P.W. 1 Sub-Inspector Neeraj Kumar lodged an FIR with police station Banbasa, District Champawat on 9-11-2006 stating therein that on 9-11-2006, he along with Constable Arvind Kumar, Constable Mahendra Giri, Constable Ganesh Singh left the police station at about 5.40 p.m. vide report No. 22 for patrolling duty; when police party reached near Faagpur on Khatima Tanakpur Road, they found one person standing on the road side; having seen the police party that person started behaving abnormally and started rushing towards Faagpur; on suspicion, police party asked him to stop, however, instead of, stopping, he started running; police party, having chased him, apprehended him at about 8-30 p.m.; on being asked, he had disclosed his identity as Prem Lal, resident of village Nigali, near Shyamlatal, police station Kotwali Champawat; appellant further told the police party that he was carrying charas in a polythene bag, which was kept in his bag; on this, police asked the appellant, if he wish, his search could be made in the presence of Magistrate, on this, appellant started apologizing and agreed to be searched by the police party; a consent letter, to be searched by the police party, was prepared on the spot whereupon signature of the appellant was obtained; thereafter, members of police party searched each other and on being satisfied, that none of them were carrying any illegal item, they commenced the search of appellant, appellant was found carrying a yellow colour polythene on which Kwality Shoe Store, Tehsil Road, Khatima (USN) & Action, Bata, Lakhani and Ph. 250597 was printed, inside this yellow polythene bag, there was a pink colour polythene packet wherefrom 750 gms. of charas was recovered; appellant was asked license for carrying the charas but he failed to produce the same; police party told the appellant that he had committed offence punishable under Section 8/18/20 of the NDPS Act; appellant was formally arrested and charas, so recovered, from the possession of the appellant was kept in seal cover under the seal of P.W. 1 and sample seal thereof was also prepared on the spot; apart from charas, one Nokia 3220 (a mobile handset) bearing IMEI No. 359396009822437 and Rs. 2,200/- were also recovered from the appellant; Nokia phone and Rs. 2,200/-, so recovered, were also kept in seal covers; seizure memo and arrest memo, were prepared on the spot; thereafter, appellant and contraband, so recovered, were brought to the police station and thereafter, FIR No. 18 of 2006 was got registered on 9-11-2006 at 10.45 p.m.

3. Investigation of the case was handed over to SI Harish Chandra Joshi (P.W. 6), who having investigated the matter, submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8/18/20 of the NDPS Act.

4. Learned trial Court on 17-5-2007 framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. Appellant denied charge and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, from the side of prosecution, P.W. 1 Sub-Inspector Neeraj Kumar (complainant), P.W. 2 Constable Arvind Kumar, P.W. 3 Constable Hemant Kumar, P.W. 4 Head Constable Bhupal Singh, P.W. 5 Constable Padam Singh and P.W. 6 Harish Chandra Joshi (Investigating Officer) were examined. Statement of accused appellant was also recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C.

6. Having perused the material made available on record, learned trial Court was pleased to