The judgment underscores the significance of procedural compliance, the requirement for independent witness support, and the need to produce seized property as crucial factors in establishing liability under the NDPS Act.

I.S. Shrivastava, J.

1. The appeal has been preferred under section 374 of the Cr.P.C by the appellants Bansilal, Gendabai and Prema @ Pepabai being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22/09/2008 passed by the Court of Shri J.P. Rao, Special Judge (under NDPS Act), Neemuch in Special Sessions Case no.15/2004 by which the appellants have been convicted under sections 8/ 18(b) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 13 years with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- each; in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years by each.

2. According to the prosecution story, on 04/04/2004 Shri Khalil Khan, ASI, Police Station- Neemuch Cant PW-8 received an information from the informer that one gents and two ladies were conveying the opium in nags used for carrying clothes and they were likely to go from Roadways Bus Stand Neemuch to Rajasthan by bus. The above information was registered in Rojnamcha-sana. Panchanama for the information of the informer was prepared and sent to CSP Neemuch. Thereafter, ASI Khalil Khan along with head constable Omprakash Singh, Bansilal Bhati, constable Ramesh Bairagi, lady constable Kiran Sharma and panch witnesses Kishanlal and Baludas and with articles for investigation reached the Roadways Bus Stand, Neemuch by govt. vehicle bearing registration no. M.P.-03-2656. There they found the accused persons (two ladies and one gents) holding bags in their hands. On enquiry, they confirmed their names to be Bansilal, Gendabai and Pepabai. They were apprised with the information of the informer. Consent for their search was obtained under section 50 of the NDPS Act. Panchanamas were prepared.

Thereafter, ASI Khalil Khan conducted personal search of accused. Bansilal and nothing was seized from his personal search. Thereafter, personal search of accused Gendibai and Pepabai was conducted by lady constable Kiran Sharma, but nothing was seized. The bags in the possession of Bansilal and Gendabai were searched, from which a plastic bag was recovered which contained opium. For this search panchanama was prepared. Thereafter, the bag in the possession of Pepabai was searched, from which a regzine bag was recovered which contained a plastic bag, which was contained with opium. Hence, panchanama was prepared. On weightment of the opium recovered from Bansilal and Gendibai, it was found to be 7.300 kg, from which two samples of 30 grams each were prepared, sealed and marked as Articles A-1 A-2 and the remaining quantity was sealed in the same bag and marked as Article - A. Seal impression panchanama was prepared.

On weightment of the opium recovered from the possession of Pepabai, it was found to be 8 kg with the bag; from which two samples of 30 grams each were prepared, sealed and marked as Articles B-1, B-2 and remaining quantity was sealed in the same regzine bag and marked as Article- B. Seal impression panchanama of the same was prepared. Other relevant panchanamas were also prepared. The accused persons were arrested. On return to the police station, report under section 57 of the Act was sent to Superintendent of Police, Neemuch. The seized property was deposited in the Malkhana and it was handed over to Head Constable, In-charge of Malkhana. In-charge of police station- Neemuch Cant Shri B.P. Samadhiya registered the offence under section 8/ 18 of the NDPS Act at crime no. 191/ 2004. Thereafter, samples Articles A-1 and B-1 were sent to FSL, Indore for chemical examination. Thereafter, proceedings under section 52A of the Act was taken up before the Executive Magistrate, Neemuch and after completion of investigation, challan was filed against the appellants. After trial, the appellants have been convicted as mentioned herein above.

3. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The independent witnesses were hostile. Compliance of section 52A of the Act was not