Strict adherence to procedural safeguards is essential in drug-related cases to ensure a conviction under the NDPS Act.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu on 6-9-2012 by virtue whereof respondents Bupinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Ravi Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') have been acquitted of charge under S.8/21/22, NDPS Act.

2. The State has questioned the legality and correctness of the judgment of acquittal on the grounds set forth in the memo of appeal.

3. Prosecution version is that on 13-2-2010, a Maruti Car bearing registration No. JKO2AC - 9699 was intercepted at Jeevan Nagar, Jammu, by the Police Team while checking the vehicles. Accused Bupinder Singh was found driving the Maruti Car while other two accused were seated in the Car. The checking conducted by the Police Party yielded a polythene bag lying under the driving seat. 15 boxes of Spasmo Proxyvon, each containing six strips of 24 capsules were found in the polythene bag. The total number of capsules was found to be 2160. Accused Ravi Kumar seated on the front seat was found in possession of polythene bag containing 11 boxes, each box containing six strips with each strip having 24 capsules, total 1584 capsules. Accused Sukhdev Singh sitting on the back seat was found in possession of polythene bag containing 14 boxes, each having 6 strips and each strip containing 24 capsules, total 2016 proxyvon capsules. Thus, in all, capsules numbering 5760 were recovered from the accused. Sub-Inspector Bashir Ahmed wrote a docket and forwarded the same to Police Station Stawari, Jammu for registration of case. Investigation conducted by SHO Police Station Satwari culminated in filing of charge - sheet against the accused, who pleaded not guilty before the Trial Court and claimed to be tried. Prosecution has adduced evidence to bring home guilt against the accused. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the trial, learned Trial Court found that the prosecution evidence was full of contradictions and there was no corroboration from independent witnesses. It accordingly, recorded the acquittal of accused.

4. Heard and gone through the record minutely.

5. It emanates from the record that, consequent upon forwarding of docket by SI Bashir Ahmed to Police Station Stawari, SHO went on spot, prepared the seizure memo pertaining to recovery of proxyvon capsules. It appears that the recovery was affected by a patrolling team headed by SI Bashir Ahmed. SHO seized the recovered material after taking two capsules from each bag as sample and seized the same. He prepared the personal search and arrest memos of accused. The remaining stock of capsules too was sealed separately. It further appears that two prosecution witnesses including SI Bashir Ahmed turned hostile at the trial. Testimony of SI Bashir Ahmed leaves no room for doubt that the docket forming the basis of FIR was scribed by Munshi of Police Station, who was not present on spot. This conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that recovery memo mentions the FIR number which could not have been allotted before registration of case while recovery was made by the Police intercepting party before the docket was forwarded to Police Station for registration of FIR. PW - Vikram Kumar has resiled from the prosecution version by maintaining that the accused were caught near Digiana Ashram. Prosecution evidence is not convincing on the material aspect of search and recovery of alleged contraband. This apart, link evidence in the case is missing. Prosecution has failed to place on record contemporary documentary evidence to demonstrate that seized packets of the samples and the remaining stock of alleged contraband were kept in malkhana before forwarding o