The necessity of following statutory safeguards in the investigation process and the importance of credible and complete evidence in drug-related cases.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 8.9.1999, and the order of sentence dated 9.9.1999, rendered by the Presiding Officer, Special Court, Kurukshetra, vide which he convicted the accused/appellant, for the offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic, Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as the Act only) and sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of two years, for having been found in possession of 15 Kgs., poppy-husk, now falling within the ambit of non-commercial quantity, without any permit or licence.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 1.12.1995, Baljit Singh, ASI, alongwith other police officials, was on patrol duty, at Rajbaha bridge, at Jalbehra head, when the accused was seen coming with a plastic bag, on his shoulder, who on seeing the police party, tried to retreat, but was apprehended, on suspicion. Some narcotic substance was suspected, in the bag, being carried by the accused. On search of the bag, being carried by the accused, in the presence of Paramjit Singh Ahlawat, DSP, who was called to the spot, by sending a message, 15 Kgs. Poppy-husk, was recovered. Two samples of 200 grams each, from the bag, were taken out, and the remaining poppy-husk, was kept in the same bag. The samples, and the bag, containing the remaining poppy-husk, were converted into parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, formal FIR was registered. Rough site plan of the place of recovery, was prepared. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.

3. On appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section 15 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.

4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Som Nath, HC (PW-1), Paramjit Singh Ahlawat, DSP, (PW-2), Dilpazir Singh, SI, (PW-3), Raja Ram, HC, (PW-4), Surjit Singh, HC (PW- 5), and baljit Singh, ASI (PW-6). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.

5. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C, was recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, examined Karnail Singh (DW-1), in his defence. Thereafter, he closed the defence evidence.

6. After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant, as stated hereinbefore.

7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record, of the case, carefully.

9. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that no independent witness, was joined by the Investigating Officer, at the time of alleged search and seizure, despite availability. He further submitted that even no effort was made, to join an independent witness, and, as such, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. During the course of his cross-examination, Baljit Singh, ASI (PW-6), the Investigating Officer, stated that he tried to join an independent witness, but nobody was ready. Surjit Singh, HC, (PW-5), a witness to the recovery, however, during his statement, did not state even a single word that Baljit Singh, ASI, the Investigating Officer, tried to join an independent