The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with mandatory sections of the NDPS Act and the legality of sampling and seizure proceedings in determining the sanctity of the prosecution case.

JUDGMENT

Anuradha Shukla, J. - This criminal appeal has been preferred for being aggrieved by the judgment delivered on 15.12.2022 by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Satna, in SC NDPS/3000012/2015. By this judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offence of Section 8© read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year & six months and fine amount of Rs.3,000/- with a default clause to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months, in case of non-payment of fine.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that Sub-Inspector S.N.P. Verma, posted in Police Station, Amarpatan, district Satna, got a tip off from mukhbir on 20.7.2015 that the appellant was arriving on a black coloured PULSAR motorcycle with registration no.MP-19-ME-7520 and he has "Ganja" in his bag for the purpose of sale; Sub-Inspector S.N.P. Verma prepared the mukhbir soochna Panchnama, sent a copy of it to SDO(P), Maihar, through staff and informed him personally on phone; he summoned the witnesses in police station and after obtaining the permission of SDO(P), Maihar, set out for spot along with witnesses and police team. On arrival of appellant on the motorcycle, he was stopped and informed about the tip off; his consent was obtained for search; the police party and witnesses gave their search to the appellant and then his bag was searched wherein two plastic bags were found -one was white and the other one was green in colour; on examination it was revealed that these two plastic bags were containing "Ganja"; they were weighed and then the contents were made homogeneous; two samples of 25 grams each were drawn; the remaining quantity of "Ganja" as well as the two samples drawn were seized and sealed; appellant was not having any licence to validate his possession, therefore he was arrested; his vehicle was also seized; appellant was taken to the police station along with the seized "Ganja" and motorcycle and FIR was registered against him at Crime No.294/2015. The matter was investigated; the seized "Ganja" was sent to FSL for examination from the safe custody of Malkhana; it was established that the material seized from appellant was contraband; therefore after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the trial was held. The appellant was held guilty and was sentenced by the impugned judgment, as per the details given above.

3. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that seizure memo witnesses, namely Bhagchandra Kushram (P.W.6) and Ashok Kewat (P.W.7) did not support the prosecution story and only on the basis of interested witnesses, namely Jaiprakash Kushwaha (P.W.1), Ishwar Pratap Singh (P.W.2), S.N.P. Verma (P.W.3), Vijay Tripathi (P.W.4) and Ajeet Verma (P.W.5), an erroneous finding of conviction was given; there were serious contradictions in the testimony of these interested witnesses; the provisions of Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of NDPS Act were not complied with and for the reason of their nonobservance. The prosecution case should not have been held as proved. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence in correct perspective. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted in the case.

4. State has opposed this appeal claiming that the impugned judgment is based on facts and law and no ground is made out for interfering in the impugned judgment. It is further argued that appellant has as many as 36 cases registered against him and this shows that he is a habitual offender.

5. Both the parties have been heard and the record of the trial court has been perused.

6. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that while conducting the search and after registration of crime, compliance of mandatory sections of NDPS Act, namely Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57, has not been observed. According to learned counsel for the appellant, this non-compliance has been fatal to the prosecution case. The record shows that the seizure of "Ga