Conviction under the NDPS Act can be sustained based on consistent official testimony and documentary evidence even if independent witnesses turn hostile, provided statutory safeguards like Section 50 are complied with.

Judgment on Board

The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 19.12.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mahasamund in Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No. H-39/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.10.2017 at about 7:15 PM, Sub-Inspector Chandrakant Sahu (PW-11), while on patrol duty at Mahasamund, received secret information that a person was transporting ganja near Railway Station Road for illegal sale. The information received was reduced into writing and intimation was sent to superior officers. The written information memorandum prepared in compliance of statutory requirement was exhibited during trial (Ex. P-1). Thereafter, police staff along with independent witnesses proceeded towards the indicated location and laid surveillance near Railway Station Road. The suspected person, later identified as the appellant, was intercepted. The appellant was informed about the information received and notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon him informing him of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. The notice and consent document were proved as Ex. P-2. After obtaining consent, search of the bag carried by the appellant was conducted in presence of witnesses. During search, two packets containing suspected ganja were recovered. The recovered contraband was weighed on the spot with electronic weighing machine and total quantity was found to be 2 kilograms and 80 grams.

Necessary identification and weighment panchnama was prepared and proved as Ex. P-3. Samples were drawn from the seized ganja, sealed, and specimen seal impressions were taken. Sampling and sealing proceedings were documented vide sample panchnama (Ex. P-4). Thereafter, complete seizure memo was prepared in presence of witnesses and the contraband articles along with samples were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-5). The appellant was arrested and arrest memo was prepared, proved as Ex.P-6. FIR was registered at Police Station Mahasamund under Crime No. 528/2017. FIR was proved as Exhibit P-7.Seized samples were forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory through proper channel. Forwarding memo and dispatch entry were proved as Ex. P-8. FSL report confirming that the seized material was ganja was proved as Ex. P-9. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent court. The accused abjured his guilt and demanded trial taking defence of false implication.

Learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, found the prosecution case proved in respect of offence under Section 20(b)(i)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act and convicted the appellant/accused for commission of aforesaid offence under N.D.P.S. Act as shown herein-above in paragraph 1.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence on facts as well as on law and submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its proper perspective and has recorded conviction merely on presumptions, ignoring material contradictions and serious procedural lapses.

It is contended that the entire prosecution case rests upon an alleged recovery said to have been made from the possession of the appellant, but the prosecution has utterly failed to prove such recovery beyond reasonable doubt. The independent witnesses cited by the prosecution have not supported the seizure proceedings and have turned