Mandatory compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is imperative, and failure to comply with the provision can vitiate the conviction based on the recovery of illicit articles.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

1. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2020, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2017, State Vs. Sahib @ Manpreet @ Jasmati by the Court of Special Judge (NDPS Act)/2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital. By the impugned judgment and order, appellant has been convicted under section 8 read with 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and six months and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.

2. Facts necessary to resolve the controversy, briefly stated are as hereunder:-

On 24.12.2016, a Police party left Police Station Banphoolpura, district Nainital at 07:15 AM for service of non-bailable warrants and patrolling. This Police Party also comprised of PW1 S.I. Kishore Chandra Pant and PW2 Constable Ravi Sharma. During the course of patrolling, the Police Party received an information that some persons on a motorcycle were approaching towards Railway Station and they were carrying Charas with them. Relying on the information, the Police party intercepted the motorcycle. There were three persons on it. They assaulted the Police party. One of them ran away but two were apprehended. One of them is the appellant. In this case, the Court is not proposing to consider as to what was recovered from the co-accused, but, according to the case, when a search was made, 126 grams of Charas was recovered from the appellant. A recovery memo Ex. A-6 was prepared at the spot and based on it, chik FIR Ex. A-7 was recorded and a case was lodged against the appellant and another. Copy of the general diary entry is Ex. A-8. During investigation, recovered articles were sent for forensic examination and report was received. After investigation, chargesheet Ex. A-16 was submitted against the appellant under Sections 332, 353 IPC and Section 8 read with 20 of the Act. Cognizance was taken.

3. On 17.08.2017, charges under section 377, 353 IPC and section 8 read with 20 of the Act were framed against the appellant, to which, he denied and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution, in order to establish the case, examined as many as seven witnesses, namely, PW1 S.I. Kishore Chandra Pant, PW2 Constable Ravi Sharma, PW3 Constable Pankaj Kumar, PW4 Head Constable Prayag Ram, PW5 Dr. Naresh Gulwani, PW6 Constable Mohd. Irfan and PW7 S.I. Mahesh Chandra.

5. Appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). According to him, he was falsely implicated. Though, the appellant stated that he would lead evidence in his defence, but no evidence was adduced in defence.

6. After hearings the parties, based on the evidence, the learned Court below, by the impugned judgment and order, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Sections 332 and 353 IPC, but, convicted and sentenced him under section 8 and 20 of the Act, as stated hereinbefore. Aggrieved, the instant appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties through Video Conferencing and perused the record.

8. In the instant case, according to the prosecution alongwith appellant one more person Than Singh Adhikari was arrested and Charas was recovered from him also. He was simultaneously tried with the appellant and on 30.1.20 he has also been convicted in special session trial no. 36 of 2017. On being asked learned counsel for the appellant would inform that Than Singh Adhikari has been released by the government on Parole for six months. Than Singh Adhikari has not preferred any appeal. Had he filed any appeal both the appeals would have been decided simultaneously. There is no appeal filed by Than Singh Adhikari and he is not in Jail at present therefore, now this Court proceeds to decide the instant appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the case is false. A