Non-compliance with the mandatory personal search requirements under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the presence of FIR numbers on documents allegedly prepared prior to the FIR's registration create reasonable doubt, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.

****

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence both dated 24.04.2018 as passed by the Learned Special Court, Chandigarh in NDPS Case No.33 of 06.04.2017 titled as “State Vs. Sikander Sharma” arising out of FIR No.82 dated 15.07.2016 registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “NDPS Act”) at Police Station Sector 19, Chandigarh, whereby the appellant had been held guilty for commission of aforementioned offence and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 months and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

2. The prosecution story as unfolded in brief is that on 15.07.2016, while performing vehicle checking duty, the Police party found a youth while coming from the side of Sector 20 (Mosque) on foot. On noticing the police officials, he at once turned back and started moving with fast paces. On suspicion having been aroused, he was apprehended. He tried to throw a polythene by taking it out from the pocket of his trouser, but his hand was held by one of the police officials. On checking, some narcotic substance was found to be kept therein. On asking, the said youth disclosed his name as Sikander Sharma @ Bantu i.e. the present appellant. He could not produce any licence or permit for keeping the contraband which was heroin. On weighing the said contraband on weighing machine, it was found to be 10 grams. The appellant was formally arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was presented before the Court.

3. Copies of challan were supplied to the appellant as envisaged under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On finding a prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, the appellant had been charge-sheeted accordingly. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses besides placing reliance upon certain documents and thereafter the evidence of prosecution was closed.

5. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the appellant denied the allegations as levelled against him and pleased innocence. No defence evidence had been adduced.

6. On appraising the evidence produced on record and considering the contentions raised by both the sides, the Learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty and convicted him in the manner as indicated above. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

7. It is submitted in grounds of appeal and it has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence are not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the impugned judgment, the Learned Trial Court ignored the fact that the appellant had been falsely implicated in this case and a false recovery had been planted upon him. No independent witness had been joined by the Investigating Agency though the alleged recovery was evidently effected from him from a public place. It is further argued that the mandatory provisions of Sections 50 of the NDPS Act had not been complied by the Investigating Agency. Moreso, there was unexplained delay of 07 days in sending the sample of the recovered contraband to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (for short “CFSL”). The documents like seizure memo were not proved to be prepared at the spot since they bear the FIR number and all particulars of the