The prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody and the integrity of the seized material, leading to the benefit of reasonable doubt being given to the accused.

The appellants are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in S.C. No. 1544 of 2003 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam and they are challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them for the offence under Section 20 (b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’ for short).

2. The prosecution case is that on 28.03.2002, at about 3.20 p.m., accused Nos. 2 to 5 were found in possession of ganja weighing 200 gms. each while they were inside autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-2D 7758 parked in the residential property of the first accused at Mundakkal Village and the first accused was found in possession of 400 gms. of ganja in a plastic cover in a room in his house by the Sub Inspector of Kollam East Police Station and party and the accused are thereby alleged to have committed the offence under Section 20 (b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act.

3. On appearance of accused Nos 1 and 3 before the trial court, and when they pleaded not guilty to the charge, PWs 1 to 8 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P12 and MOs 1 to 21 were marked from the side of the prosecution. From the side of defence, DW1 examined and Exhibit D1 marked.

4. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as per the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2006, convicted and sentenced the accused persons to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand each) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence under Section 20 (b)(ii)A of the NDPS Act.

5. Heard Sri. C. Rajendran, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Vipin Narayan, the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records.

6. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence passed against the accused are legally sustainable.

7. The main contentions raised on behalf of the accused/appellants are as follows:

1. The trial court has not considered the contradiction in the identification of the material objects by PWs 4 and 7.

2. The trial court has not considered the unexplained delay in producing the material objects and the delay in forwarding the same to the laboratory and non-production of the copy of the forwarding note.

3. The trial court ought to have found that there is no satisfactory link evidence to show that the same sample which was drawn from the contraband seized at the time of occurrence had reached the hands of the chemical examiner without any tampering.

4. No satisfactory evidence is adduced to prove the manner of sampling as well as its safe custody in a tamper proof condition.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PWs 4, 6, and 7 regarding the arrest and recovery of contraband items from the possession of the accused persons is credible and trustworthy and that Exhibit P11 report from the Forensic Science Laboratory would show that the material objects seized were ganja and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the findings in the impugned judgment.

9. PW7 was the Sub Inspector of Kollam East Police Station on 28.03.2002 and he deposed that at about 3 p.m., on that day, he got reliable information that 3 or 4 persons are engaged in sale of ganja in an autorickshaw near the water tank on the side of beach road and therefore, after recording the information in the general diary and forwarding written information to his superior officers, he reached near the water tank along with police party. PW7 deposed that on questioning the person in the driver seat and 3 persons sitting in the back seat of the autorickshaw, they admitted that they are in possession of ganja and that they brought the same from the first accused residing in the nearby canal puramboke and therefore, steps were taken to guard the house of the first accused and the other accused in the autorickshaw were informed about their r