Non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution in NDPS cases; minor sampling irregularities do not undermine the case’s integrity, and mandatory sentences under the NDPS Act cannot be reduced by the court.

JUDGMENT :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. This is an appeal challenging the judgment dated 27.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.A. No. 125 of 2021, whereby the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as “the NDPS Act”) were affirmed.

2. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 01.02.2021 in C.C. No. 15 of 2020, convicted the appellant and imposed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for each count (sentences running concurrently). The High Court upheld the same.

3. The case of the prosecution was that on 21.09.2019, PW-1 (Sub- Inspector) received secret information that ganja was being transported on a two-wheeler bearing TN-03-M-0585. PW-1 reduced this information into writing, informed PW-5 (Inspector) and proceeded with two constables, PW-2 and PW-3.

4. The appellant (A-2) and her husband (A-1) were intercepted. After informing them of their rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the police searched the vehicle and seized 23.500 kg of ganja, along with Rs.21,140/-. Two samples of about 50g each were drawn, sealed and marked as ‘S-1’ and ‘S-2’. PW-1 also recorded the confession of A-1 at the spot.

5. After reaching the police station, PW-1 submitted a report to PW-5 under Section 57 of the NDPS Act. On receiving the report, PW- 5 registered the F.I.R. No. 462/2019 dated 21.09.2019 for offences under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act and prepared the intimation memos. A-1 and A-2 were sent for remand and PW-5 took up the investigation.

6. During investigation, PW-5 forwarded the seized samples to the Court along with a requisition for chemical analysis. The samples were received by PW-6 (Scientific Officer) through PW-4. PW-6 analysed the sample, detected cannabinoids and furnished the report.

7. Thereafter, PW-5 recorded the statements of PW-6 and the remaining members of the raiding team under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “the Cr.P.C”). The seized cash was deposited to the Reserve Bank of India. After completing the investigation, PW-5 filed the final report against A-1 and A-2 for the aforesaid offences.

8. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses. A-1 and A-2 were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., during which they denied all incriminating circumstances.

9. The trial court found A-1 and A-2 guilty under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act, convicted them and imposed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for each count (sentences running concurrently).

10. Aggrieved thereby, A-1 and A-2 approached the High Court, which held that the Trial Court has rendered proper findings on the basis of the materials placed by the prosecution to prove the case against A-1 and A-2. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by A-1 and A-2 was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

11. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant (A-2) has filed the present appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution case suffers from multiple infirmities. First, it is urged that the seizure took place in a residential locality containing about 50-60 houses, yet no independent witness was secured and only police witnesse