Compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is crucial for upholding convictions, particularly regarding arrest and recovery of narcotics.

By Court:- The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 24.05.2004 and order of sentence dated 25.05.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Special Case No. 14 of 2001, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act , 1985 and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 08.07.2001, Sarvjit Narayan Jha, Sub-Inspector of Excise was returning from Baliapur. He got information from an unknown person that Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha (accused) is selling Ganja in his gumti situated in the east of Kalpana Talkies Cinema. On such information, the informant reached to the place of occurrence and found that shopkeeper Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha (appellant) was selling Ganja in his shop to a customer namely Satyendra Singh. The informant conducted a raid in the shop and seized some plastic packets containing Ganja from the shop of the appellant. One packet contained 45 grams of Ganja, ten packets of three grams of Ganja, ten packets of five grams of Ganja and eight packets of two grams of Ganja, total 141 grams of Ganja. The seizure was prepared in the presence of Birendra Singh (P.W. 4) and Raju Singh (P.W. 1), independent witnesses. Out of 141 grams of Ganja, the informant prepared one packet of 10 grams of Ganja and two packet of five gram of Ganja, total 20 grams of Ganja, for sending it to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the rest of 121 grams of Ganja, was sealed in a container upon which the appellant has not put his seal as he was not having the same but has put his signature.

3. On the basis of the statement of the informant, Special Case No. 14 of 2001 was registered. The accused was disclosed about his rights to get his statement recorded by the Magistrate but the accused/appellant has denied to do so. The defence of the accused is complete denial of recovery of Ganja from the gumti belonging to the accused.

4. The charge has been framed against the appellant on 04.03.2002, under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act , 1985 to which the appellant has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial.

5. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether five witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents up to Exhibit- 4, in support of its case. Raju Singh, seizure witness, has been examined as P.W. 1, Sarvjit Narayan Jha, informant of the case, has been examined as P.W. 2, OmPrakash Bajpayee, Assistant Sub-Inspector in the department of Excise, has been examined as P.W. 3, Birendra Singh, another seizure witness, has been examined as P.W. 4 and Surendra Upadhyaya, Excise Constable, has been examined as P.W. 5.

Signature of Raju Singh on the seizure list, has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1, signature of Birendra Singh on seizure list has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1/1, seizue list has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 2, prosecution report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 3 and the Forensic Science Laboratory report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 4. Seized Ganja was also produced in the Court, which has been proved and marked as Material Exhibit- 1.

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 24.03.2004, where the appellant has denied about any evidence against him, rather he has been implicated in a conspiracy but no defence evidence has been brough on record on behalf of the appellant.

9. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, whereby the learned Tri