The court confirmed that statutory requirements under the NDPS Act were met, upholding the conviction for possession of a substantial quantity of contraband.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.5.2011 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Dhamtari in Special Criminal Case No. 09/2010, convicting the accused / appellant under S.20(ii)(C), of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , and sentencing him to undergo RI for 15 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac, in default whereof to suffer additional RI for five years.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 2.2.2010 when the Sub Inspector of Crime Branch - Dhamtari Shri Ramesh Sahu (PW - 9) was on patrolling duty, he received a secret information that one white Maruti Alto is coming from Nagri to Dhamtari carrying contraband in the same. The secret information panchanama Ex.P / 21 was prepared and copy of the same was forwarded to superior officer Dy.S.P., Dhamtari vide Ex.P / 1. Two independent witnesses were called by giving notice Ex.P / 18. At 12.35 noon Maruti car bearing registration No. CG 04 / B / 6437 was intercepted near Kukrel Banspara and the accused / appellant was found sitting in the driving seat. He disclosed his identity as Jaichand alias Chhotu. Notice under S.50 of the Act, was given vide Ex.P / 10, the appellant gave his consent vide Ex.P / 11, and the police party gave their search vide Ex.P / 2. When the vehicle was searched vide Ex.P / 12, in 17 gunny bags contraband was found, the same was tested through tasting, smelling, rubbing and burning and found to be ganja vide Ex.P / 13 and seized vide Ex.P / 14. After physical verification of the weighing machine vide Ex.P / 3, the contraband was weighed and it came to be 203.5 kgs. vide Ex.P / 4. Representative samples, 34 in number, each of 50 gm., were drawn vide Article A - A1 to Q - Q1 after homogenization of the same. Notice under S.91, of Cr.P.C., being given to the appellant vide Ex.P / 22, the appellant failed to produce any licence to transport the contraband. Dehati Nalishi Ex.P / 23 was recorded at 5.45 p.m. against the appellant on 2.12.2010 under S.20(b) of the Act. The appellant was arrested at 6.20 p.m. vide Ex.P / 16 on 2.12.2010. Spot Ex.P / 17 was prepared, based on Dehati Nalishi after reaching police station FIR (Ex.P / 5) was registered against the appellant under S.20(b) of the Act. The seized articles including the samples were deposited in the Malkhana vide Ex.P / 19C on 2.12.2010. On 3.12.2010 information was sent to higher official vide Ex.P / 26. Vide Ex.P / 27 the seized articles were sent to FSL on 8.12.2010 in duly sealed condition which was received by FSL on the same day. As per FSL report Ex.P / 29 the contraband was confirmed to be ganja. After completion of usual investigation, charge - sheet was filed against the appellant under S.20(b) of the Act and thereafter, charge was framed accordingly by the trial Court.

3. So as to hold the accused / appellant guilty, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was also recorded under S.313, of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para - 1 of this judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits as under:
(i) that there is non - compliance of S.42, S.50, S.55 and S.57 of the Act.
(ii) that in the Malkhana register there is no entry as to on what date the samples were drawn.
(iii) that in the Malkhana, sample seal has not been deposited.
(iv) that in the Malkhana record there is no mention that the samples so drawn were duly sealed.
(v) that from total seized