CRA-S-110-SB-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced : No

Whether full judgment is pronounced:

Chamkaur Singh

State of Punjab

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present: Mr. Rajat Dogra,

Mr. Amritpal

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 11.12.2003 , passed by the Learned

Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge,

appellant was held guilty and convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic substance Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act) and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a

fine of Rs.1 Lac, in de

rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

-2004 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRA-S-110

Reserved on:

Pronounced on:

Uploaded on:

Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced : No

Whether full judgment is pronounced: Yes

Chamkaur Singh

Versus

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Rajat Dogra, Advocate, for the appellant.

Amritpal Singh, DAG, Punjab, for the

***

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 11.12.2003 , passed by the Learned

Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge,

appellant was held guilty and convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic substance Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act) and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a

fine of Rs.1 Lac, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

110-SB-2004 (O&M)

Reserved on: 21.05.2026

Pronounced on: 24.07.2026

Uploaded on: 24.07.2026

Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced : No

...Appellant

...Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Advocate, for the appellant.

AG, Punjab, for the Respondent State.

The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 11.12.2003 , passed by the Learned

Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Amritsar whereby the

appellant was held guilty and convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic substance Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act) and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a

fault of payment of fine, to further undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 11.12.2003 , passed by the Learned

Amritsar whereby the

appellant was held guilty and convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic substance Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act) and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a

fault of payment of fine, to further undergo

CRA-S-110-SB-

2. The facts of the case are that on 18.05.2002 S. I. Gurbans Singh along

with other police officials was going from Khemkaran to Village Gazal.

On their way, they

Khemkaran Bus Stand. When the police party had proceeded 5 to 6

kilometers, they saw a person (Appellant) sitting on poly bags, in a river

bed. The said person noticed the police and tried to run away. H

the police party got suspicious and he was apprehended. The police party

suspected that he was carrying some contraband and he was apprised of

his right of being searched either before the Magistrate or a Gazetted

Officer and he consented for his s

getting his consent, the wireless messages were sent to DSP Major Singh,

who reached at the spot and after disclosing his identity to the accused,

he apprised him of his right of search either before him or a magistra

However, the Appellant got his consent statement Ex.PB recorded and

reposed confidence in DSP Major Singh and stated that he wanted to get

his search conducted in his presence. On the directions of the DSP, all

bags were searched, which were in possess

same were found containing 20 Kgs. poppy husk each. Samples of 500

grams from each bag were taken out and sealed and the bags containing

remaining poppy husk were also sealed separately bearing impressions

'GS' and 'MS', and take

memo Ex.PC. and the seal was handed over to ASI Ravel Singh.

Thereafter ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, FIR

Ex.PF/1 was recorded. The rough site plan Ex.PE was prepared. The

grounds

19.05.2002, SI Gurbans Singh produced the sample and the case property

-2004 (O&M)

2

The facts of the case are that on 18.05.2002 S. I. Gurbans Singh along

with other police officials was going from Khemkaran to Village Gazal.

On their way, they joined one Sukhdev Raj, an independent witness from

Khemkaran Bus Stand. When the police party had proceeded 5 to 6

kilometers, they saw a person (Appellant) sitting on poly bags, in a river

bed. The said person noticed the police and tried to run away. H

the police party got suspicious and he was apprehended. The police party

suspected that he was carrying some contraband and he was apprised of

his right of being searched either before the Magistrate or a Gazetted

Officer and he consented for his search before a Gazetted Officer. After

getting his consent, the wireless messages were sent to DSP Major Singh,

who reached at the spot and after disclosing his identity to the accused,

he apprised him of his right of search either before him or a magistra

However, the Appellant got his consent statement Ex.PB recorded and

reposed confidence in DSP Major Singh and stated that he wanted to get

his search conducted in his presence. On the directions of the DSP, all

bags were searched, which were in possess

same were found containing 20 Kgs. poppy husk each. Samples of 500

grams from each bag were taken out and sealed and the bags containing

remaining poppy husk were also sealed separately bearing impressions

'GS' and 'MS', and taken into possession by the police vide recovery

memo Ex.PC. and the seal was handed over to ASI Ravel Singh.

Thereafter ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, FIR

Ex.PF/1 was recorded. The rough site plan Ex.PE was prepared. The

grounds of arrest were disclosed to the accused vide Ex.PD. On

19.05.2002, SI Gurbans Singh produced the sample and the case property

The facts of the case are that on 18.05.2002 S. I. Gurbans Singh along

with other police officials was going from Khemkaran to Village Gazal.

joined one Sukhdev Raj, an independent witness from

Khemkaran Bus Stand. When the police party had proceeded 5 to 6

kilometers, they saw a person (Appellant) sitting on poly bags, in a river

bed. The said person noticed the police and tried to run away. However,

the police party got suspicious and he was apprehended. The police party

suspected that he was carrying some contraband and he was apprised of

his right of being searched either before the Magistrate or a Gazetted

earch before a Gazetted Officer. After

getting his consent, the wireless messages were sent to DSP Major Singh,

who reached at the spot and after disclosing his identity to the accused,

he apprised him of his right of search either before him or a magistrate.

However, the Appellant got his consent statement Ex.PB recorded and

reposed confidence in DSP Major Singh and stated that he wanted to get

his search conducted in his presence. On the directions of the DSP, all

bags were searched, which were in possession of the accused and the

same were found containing 20 Kgs. poppy husk each. Samples of 500

grams from each bag were taken out and sealed and the bags containing

remaining poppy husk were also sealed separately bearing impressions

n into possession by the police vide recovery

memo Ex.PC. and the seal was handed over to ASI Ravel Singh.

Thereafter ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, FIR

Ex.PF/1 was recorded. The rough site plan Ex.PE was prepared. The

of arrest were disclosed to the accused vide Ex.PD. On

19.05.2002, SI Gurbans Singh produced the sample and the case property

The facts of the case are that on 18.05.2002 S. I. Gurbans Singh along

with other police officials was going from Khemkaran to Village Gazal.

joined one Sukhdev Raj, an independent witness from

Khemkaran Bus Stand. When the police party had proceeded 5 to 6

kilometers, they saw a person (Appellant) sitting on poly bags, in a river

owever,

the police party got suspicious and he was apprehended. The police party

suspected that he was carrying some contraband and he was apprised of

his right of being searched either before the Magistrate or a Gazetted

earch before a Gazetted Officer. After

getting his consent, the wireless messages were sent to DSP Major Singh,

who reached at the spot and after disclosing his identity to the accused,

te.

However, the Appellant got his consent statement Ex.PB recorded and

reposed confidence in DSP Major Singh and stated that he wanted to get

his search conducted in his presence. On the directions of the DSP, all

ion of the accused and the

same were found containing 20 Kgs. poppy husk each. Samples of 500

grams from each bag were taken out and sealed and the bags containing

remaining poppy husk were also sealed separately bearing impressions

n into possession by the police vide recovery

memo Ex.PC. and the seal was handed over to ASI Ravel Singh.

Thereafter ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, FIR

Ex.PF/1 was recorded. The rough site plan Ex.PE was prepared. The

of arrest were disclosed to the accused vide Ex.PD. On

19.05.2002, SI Gurbans Singh produced the sample and the case property

CRA-S-110-SB-

alongwith accused before the Area Magistrate who put his initials on the

sample and the case property was again kept in safe custo

Gurbans Singh. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana while

the samples were retained by SI Gurbans Singh in double lock.

23.05.2002, the sample parcels were sent to the office of Chemical

Examiner Jalandhar alongwith the specimen sea

Satnam Singh. On receipt of the report Ex.PX which confirmed the

recovered substance to be poppy husk and the completion of the

investigation, challan was presented against the appellant.

3. Vide order date 30.07.2002, the Court of learned

ordered framing of

appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses. PW

Gurbans Singh, the Investi

and PW-3 DSP Major Singh

Prosecutor tendered in evidence the report of the Chemical Examiner,

Ex.PX, and closed the prosecution evidence.

5. After the prosecution evidence was closed, the statement of the appellant

under Section 313 of

which the incriminating circumstances appearing against him were put to

him. He denied the prosecution version in its entirety, pleaded that

nothing had been recovered from him, and stated that he had been f

implicated.

-2004 (O&M)

3

alongwith accused before the Area Magistrate who put his initials on the

sample and the case property was again kept in safe custo

Gurbans Singh. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana while

the samples were retained by SI Gurbans Singh in double lock.

23.05.2002, the sample parcels were sent to the office of Chemical

Examiner Jalandhar alongwith the specimen sea

Satnam Singh. On receipt of the report Ex.PX which confirmed the

recovered substance to be poppy husk and the completion of the

investigation, challan was presented against the appellant.

Vide order date 30.07.2002, the Court of learned

ordered framing of charge under Section

appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses. PW

Gurbans Singh, the Investigating Officer,

3 DSP Major Singh Thereafter, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor tendered in evidence the report of the Chemical Examiner,

Ex.PX, and closed the prosecution evidence.

After the prosecution evidence was closed, the statement of the appellant

under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, in

which the incriminating circumstances appearing against him were put to

him. He denied the prosecution version in its entirety, pleaded that

nothing had been recovered from him, and stated that he had been f

implicated.

alongwith accused before the Area Magistrate who put his initials on the

sample and the case property was again kept in safe custody by SI

Gurbans Singh. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana while

the samples were retained by SI Gurbans Singh in double lock. On

23.05.2002, the sample parcels were sent to the office of Chemical

Examiner Jalandhar alongwith the specimen seal through Constable

Satnam Singh. On receipt of the report Ex.PX which confirmed the

recovered substance to be poppy husk and the completion of the

investigation, challan was presented against the appellant.

Vide order date 30.07.2002, the Court of learned Special Judge, Amritsar

15 of the NDPS Act against the

appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses. PW-1 SI

gating Officer, PW-2 Constable Satnam Singh

Thereafter, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor tendered in evidence the report of the Chemical Examiner,

Ex.PX, and closed the prosecution evidence.

After the prosecution evidence was closed, the statement of the appellant

the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, in

which the incriminating circumstances appearing against him were put to

him. He denied the prosecution version in its entirety, pleaded that

nothing had been recovered from him, and stated that he had been falsely

alongwith accused before the Area Magistrate who put his initials on the

dy by SI

Gurbans Singh. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana while

On

23.05.2002, the sample parcels were sent to the office of Chemical

l through Constable

Satnam Singh. On receipt of the report Ex.PX which confirmed the

recovered substance to be poppy husk and the completion of the

Special Judge, Amritsar

of the NDPS Act against the

1 SI

2 Constable Satnam Singh

Thereafter, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor tendered in evidence the report of the Chemical Examiner,

After the prosecution evidence was closed, the statement of the appellant

the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, in

which the incriminating circumstances appearing against him were put to

him. He denied the prosecution version in its entirety, pleaded that

alsely

CRA-S-110-SB-

6. In his defence, the appellant examined two witnesses. DW

Singh, Sub Post Ma

father and

7. The learned trial Court, after appreciating and evaluating the evidence

available on record, held the appellant guilty and convicted him under

Section 15 of NDPS Act

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he had been falsely

implicated in the present case. He contended that the mandatory

provisions of Section 52

as neither the inventory nor the representative samp

certified in the presence of the learned Magistrate. He further submitted

that the samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner after an

unexplained delay of five days, while the case property and the seals

remained in the custody of th

evidence doubtful. It was further argued that the prosecution

trial Court had withheld the only independent witness, namely Sukhdev

Raj, without any plausible explanation, warranting an adverse infe

against the prosecution. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant

had in fact been illegally detained by the police several days prior to the

registration of the FIR, which was corroborated by the telegrams sent by

the appellant's father bef

the defence version of false implication. It was lastly contended that the

mandatory safeguards envisaged under Section 50 of the NDPS Act had

also not been duly complied with and, in view of these serious in

in the prosecution case, the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

-2004 (O&M)

4

In his defence, the appellant examined two witnesses. DW

Singh, Sub Post Master, Patti and DW-

d closed the evidence.

The learned trial Court, after appreciating and evaluating the evidence

available on record, held the appellant guilty and convicted him under

Section 15 of NDPS Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he had been falsely

implicated in the present case. He contended that the mandatory

provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act had not been complied with,

as neither the inventory nor the representative samp

certified in the presence of the learned Magistrate. He further submitted

that the samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner after an

unexplained delay of five days, while the case property and the seals

remained in the custody of the police officials, thereby rendering the link

evidence doubtful. It was further argued that the prosecution

trial Court had withheld the only independent witness, namely Sukhdev

Raj, without any plausible explanation, warranting an adverse infe

against the prosecution. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant

had in fact been illegally detained by the police several days prior to the

registration of the FIR, which was corroborated by the telegrams sent by

the appellant's father before the FIR was recorded, thereby probabilising

the defence version of false implication. It was lastly contended that the

mandatory safeguards envisaged under Section 50 of the NDPS Act had

also not been duly complied with and, in view of these serious in

in the prosecution case, the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

In his defence, the appellant examined two witnesses. DW-1 Manjit

-2 Gurtej Singh, the appellant's

The learned trial Court, after appreciating and evaluating the evidence

available on record, held the appellant guilty and convicted him under

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he had been falsely

implicated in the present case. He contended that the mandatory

A of the NDPS Act had not been complied with,

as neither the inventory nor the representative samples were prepared and

certified in the presence of the learned Magistrate. He further submitted

that the samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner after an

unexplained delay of five days, while the case property and the seals

e police officials, thereby rendering the link

evidence doubtful. It was further argued that the prosecution before the

trial Court had withheld the only independent witness, namely Sukhdev

Raj, without any plausible explanation, warranting an adverse inference

against the prosecution. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant

had in fact been illegally detained by the police several days prior to the

registration of the FIR, which was corroborated by the telegrams sent by

ore the FIR was recorded, thereby probabilising

the defence version of false implication. It was lastly contended that the

mandatory safeguards envisaged under Section 50 of the NDPS Act had

also not been duly complied with and, in view of these serious infirmities

in the prosecution case, the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

1 Manjit

2 Gurtej Singh, the appellant's

The learned trial Court, after appreciating and evaluating the evidence

available on record, held the appellant guilty and convicted him under

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he had been falsely

implicated in the present case. He contended that the mandatory

A of the NDPS Act had not been complied with,

les were prepared and

certified in the presence of the learned Magistrate. He further submitted

that the samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner after an

unexplained delay of five days, while the case property and the seals

e police officials, thereby rendering the link

the

trial Court had withheld the only independent witness, namely Sukhdev

rence

against the prosecution. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant

had in fact been illegally detained by the police several days prior to the

registration of the FIR, which was corroborated by the telegrams sent by

ore the FIR was recorded, thereby probabilising

the defence version of false implication. It was lastly contended that the

mandatory safeguards envisaged under Section 50 of the NDPS Act had

firmities

CRA-S-110-SB-

9. Learned State counsel, per contra, supports the impugned judgment and

submits that the recovery stands fully proved by the consistent

testimonies

intact, and that the defence of false implication is an afterthought

unsupported by any independent corroboration.

10. I have heard learned counsels appearing for both sides at considerable

length and with their able assistance carefully gone through the entire

evidence available on record, the impugned judgment, the documentary

evidence, the depositions of the witnesses a

11. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the following questions

arise for determination:

(i) Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the recovery of 80

kilograms of poppy husk from the conscious possession of

beyond reasonable doubt?

(ii) Whether there has been any violation of the mandatory provisions of

Sections 50 and 52

case?

(iii) Whether the delay of five days in dispatching the sample parc

the office of the Chemical Examiner has affected the sanctity of the

chain of custody?

(iv) Whether the non

defence evidence regarding alleged illegal detention probabilise the plea

of false implication

-2004 (O&M)

5

Learned State counsel, per contra, supports the impugned judgment and

submits that the recovery stands fully proved by the consistent

ies of PW-1 and PW-3, that the chain o

intact, and that the defence of false implication is an afterthought

unsupported by any independent corroboration.

I have heard learned counsels appearing for both sides at considerable

length and with their able assistance carefully gone through the entire

evidence available on record, the impugned judgment, the documentary

evidence, the depositions of the witnesses a

Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the following questions

arise for determination:

(i) Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the recovery of 80

kilograms of poppy husk from the conscious possession of

beyond reasonable doubt?

(ii) Whether there has been any violation of the mandatory provisions of

Sections 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act so as to vitiate the prosecution

(iii) Whether the delay of five days in dispatching the sample parc

the office of the Chemical Examiner has affected the sanctity of the

chain of custody?

(iv) Whether the non-examination of the independent witness and the

defence evidence regarding alleged illegal detention probabilise the plea

of false implication?

Learned State counsel, per contra, supports the impugned judgment and

submits that the recovery stands fully proved by the consistent

3, that the chain of custody of contraband is

intact, and that the defence of false implication is an afterthought

unsupported by any independent corroboration.

I have heard learned counsels appearing for both sides at considerable

length and with their able assistance carefully gone through the entire

evidence available on record, the impugned judgment, the documentary

evidence, the depositions of the witnesses as well as the relevant record.

Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the following questions

(i) Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the recovery of 80

kilograms of poppy husk from the conscious possession of the appellant

(ii) Whether there has been any violation of the mandatory provisions of

A of the NDPS Act so as to vitiate the prosecution

(iii) Whether the delay of five days in dispatching the sample parcels to

the office of the Chemical Examiner has affected the sanctity of the

examination of the independent witness and the

defence evidence regarding alleged illegal detention probabilise the plea

Learned State counsel, per contra, supports the impugned judgment and

submits that the recovery stands fully proved by the consistent

is

intact, and that the defence of false implication is an afterthought

I have heard learned counsels appearing for both sides at considerable

length and with their able assistance carefully gone through the entire

evidence available on record, the impugned judgment, the documentary

Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the following questions

(i) Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the recovery of 80

the appellant

(ii) Whether there has been any violation of the mandatory provisions of

A of the NDPS Act so as to vitiate the prosecution

els to

the office of the Chemical Examiner has affected the sanctity of the

examination of the independent witness and the

defence evidence regarding alleged illegal detention probabilise the plea

CRA-S-110-SB-

12. The prosecution principally rests upon the testimonies of PW

Gurbans Singh, the Investigating Officer, and PW

the Gazetted Officer before whom the search and seizure were conducted.

It is well settled that conviction can safely b

of official witnesses if their evidence is trustworthy and inspires

confidence. Merely because the witnesses happen to be police officials is

no ground to discard their testimony. There is neither any allegation nor

any material

of PW-1 or PW

offence. Their depositions are consistent with each other on all material

particulars and receive due corroboration from the doc

prepared contemporaneously during investigation.

13. The prosecution evidence establishes that the appellant was found sitting

upon four bags lying in the river bed. On noticing the police party he

attempted to flee, thereby arousing suspici

containing 20 kilograms of poppy husk each was effected from his

exclusive possession. The appellant has not offered any explanation

whatsoever regarding his possession of such huge quantity of contraband.

The quantity recover

proved, the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the

NDPS Act come into operation. The burden shifts upon the accused to

satisfactorily account for such possession. Except for making a bald

denial in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has failed

to discharge the statutory burden cast upon him. Consequently, the

presumption regarding conscious possession remains unrebutted.

-2004 (O&M)

6

The prosecution principally rests upon the testimonies of PW

Gurbans Singh, the Investigating Officer, and PW

the Gazetted Officer before whom the search and seizure were conducted.

It is well settled that conviction can safely b

of official witnesses if their evidence is trustworthy and inspires

confidence. Merely because the witnesses happen to be police officials is

no ground to discard their testimony. There is neither any allegation nor

any material on record suggesting previous enmity or motive on the part

1 or PW-3 to falsely implicate the appellant in such a serious

offence. Their depositions are consistent with each other on all material

particulars and receive due corroboration from the doc

prepared contemporaneously during investigation.

The prosecution evidence establishes that the appellant was found sitting

upon four bags lying in the river bed. On noticing the police party he

attempted to flee, thereby arousing suspici

containing 20 kilograms of poppy husk each was effected from his

exclusive possession. The appellant has not offered any explanation

whatsoever regarding his possession of such huge quantity of contraband.

The quantity recovered is of the commercial quantity. Once possession is

proved, the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the

NDPS Act come into operation. The burden shifts upon the accused to

satisfactorily account for such possession. Except for making a bald

denial in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has failed

to discharge the statutory burden cast upon him. Consequently, the

presumption regarding conscious possession remains unrebutted.

The prosecution principally rests upon the testimonies of PW-1 SI

Gurbans Singh, the Investigating Officer, and PW-3 DSP Major Singh,

the Gazetted Officer before whom the search and seizure were conducted.

It is well settled that conviction can safely be based upon the testimony

of official witnesses if their evidence is trustworthy and inspires

confidence. Merely because the witnesses happen to be police officials is

no ground to discard their testimony. There is neither any allegation nor

on record suggesting previous enmity or motive on the part

3 to falsely implicate the appellant in such a serious

offence. Their depositions are consistent with each other on all material

particulars and receive due corroboration from the documentary evidence

prepared contemporaneously during investigation.

The prosecution evidence establishes that the appellant was found sitting

upon four bags lying in the river bed. On noticing the police party he

attempted to flee, thereby arousing suspicion. The recovery of four bags

containing 20 kilograms of poppy husk each was effected from his

exclusive possession. The appellant has not offered any explanation

whatsoever regarding his possession of such huge quantity of contraband.

ed is of the commercial quantity. Once possession is

proved, the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the

NDPS Act come into operation. The burden shifts upon the accused to

satisfactorily account for such possession. Except for making a bald

denial in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has failed

to discharge the statutory burden cast upon him. Consequently, the

presumption regarding conscious possession remains unrebutted.

1 SI

3 DSP Major Singh,

the Gazetted Officer before whom the search and seizure were conducted.

e based upon the testimony

of official witnesses if their evidence is trustworthy and inspires

confidence. Merely because the witnesses happen to be police officials is

no ground to discard their testimony. There is neither any allegation nor

on record suggesting previous enmity or motive on the part

3 to falsely implicate the appellant in such a serious

offence. Their depositions are consistent with each other on all material

umentary evidence

The prosecution evidence establishes that the appellant was found sitting

upon four bags lying in the river bed. On noticing the police party he

on. The recovery of four bags

containing 20 kilograms of poppy husk each was effected from his

exclusive possession. The appellant has not offered any explanation

whatsoever regarding his possession of such huge quantity of contraband.

ed is of the commercial quantity. Once possession is

proved, the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the

NDPS Act come into operation. The burden shifts upon the accused to

satisfactorily account for such possession. Except for making a bald

denial in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has failed

to discharge the statutory burden cast upon him. Consequently, the

CRA-S-110-SB-

14. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently arg

case, the mandatory provisions

complied with and the appellant was liable to be acquitted. The said

submission has been opposed by the learned State counsel by contending

that since the recover

bags and not from personal search, the

NDPS Act would not be attracted in the instant case.

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

3 Supreme Court Cases 746

container, etc. carried by accused person, compliance with Section

the NDPS Act is not required. Their Lordships have held as

provision of Section

-2004 (O&M)

7

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently arg

case, the mandatory provisions of Section

complied with and the appellant was liable to be acquitted. The said

submission has been opposed by the learned State counsel by contending

that since the recovery of the contraband had taken place from the

bags and not from personal search, the

NDPS Act would not be attracted in the instant case.

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana, (

3 Supreme Court Cases 746, have held that for search of bag, briefcase,

container, etc. carried by accused person, compliance with Section

the NDPS Act is not required. Their Lordships have held as

"15. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

provision of Section 50 of the Act would also apply, while

searching the bag, brief case etc., carried by the person and its

noncompliance would be fatal to the proceedings initiated

under the Act. We find no merit in

counsel. It requires to be noticed that the question of

compliance or non-compliance of Section

is relevant only where search of a person is involved and the

said Section is not applicable nor attracted where no search of

a person is involved. Search and recovery from a bag, brief

case, container, etc., does not come wit

Section 50 of the NDPS Act, because firstly, Section 50

expressly speaks of search of person only. Secondly, the Section

speaks of taking of the person to be searched by the Gazetted

Officer or Magistrate for the purpose of search. Thirdly, this

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in the instant

Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not

complied with and the appellant was liable to be acquitted. The said

submission has been opposed by the learned State counsel by contending

y of the contraband had taken place from the poly

bags and not from personal search, the provisions of Section 50 of the

NDPS Act would not be attracted in the instant case. Their Lordships of

Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010)

, have held that for search of bag, briefcase,

container, etc. carried by accused person, compliance with Section 50 of

the NDPS Act is not required. Their Lordships have held as under :-

"15. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

of the Act would also apply, while

searching the bag, brief case etc., carried by the person and its

noncompliance would be fatal to the proceedings initiated

We find no merit in the contention of the learned

counsel. It requires to be noticed that the question of

compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS. Act

is relevant only where search of a person is involved and the

said Section is not applicable nor attracted where no search of

a person is involved. Search and recovery from a bag, brief

case, container, etc., does not come within the ambit of

of the NDPS Act, because firstly, Section 50

expressly speaks of search of person only. Secondly, the Section

speaks of taking of the person to be searched by the Gazetted

r Magistrate for the purpose of search. Thirdly, this

ued that in the instant

of the NDPS Act were not

complied with and the appellant was liable to be acquitted. The said

submission has been opposed by the learned State counsel by contending

poly

of the

Their Lordships of

2010)

, have held that for search of bag, briefcase,

of

"15. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

of the Act would also apply, while

searching the bag, brief case etc., carried by the person and its

noncompliance would be fatal to the proceedings initiated

the contention of the learned

counsel. It requires to be noticed that the question of

of the NDPS. Act

is relevant only where search of a person is involved and the

said Section is not applicable nor attracted where no search of

a person is involved. Search and recovery from a bag, brief

hin the ambit of

of the NDPS Act, because firstly, Section 50

expressly speaks of search of person only. Secondly, the Section

speaks of taking of the person to be searched by the Gazetted

r Magistrate for the purpose of search. Thirdly, this

CRA-S-110-SB-

position, the contention regarding noncompliance of Section 50

Ahalawat and as directed by him, the bag carried by accused

-2004 (O&M)

8

issue in our considered opinion is

of the observations made by this court in the case of

v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003) 7 SCC 465

has observed:

"16. A bare reading of Section 50 shows that it only applies in

case of personal search of a person. It does not extend to

search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises

(see Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (1999)

8 SCC 257, State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC

172 and Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana (2001) 3 SCC 28)

The language of section is implicitly clear that the search has to

be in relation to a person as contrast to search of premises,

vehicles, or articles. This positio

the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh's case. Above being the

position, the contention regarding noncompliance of Section 50

of the Act is also without any substance."

16. x x x

17. x x x

18. It appears from the evidence on record that the accused was

confronted by ASI Maya Ram and other police officials on

24.1.1996 and he was informed that he has the right to either

be searched before the gazetted officer or before a Magistrate

and the accused chose the later (sic former). Thereafter, the

accused was taken to the DSP, Pehowa, Shri Paramjit Singh

Ahalawat and as directed by him, the bag carried by accused

on his shoulder was searched and the charas was found in that

in our considered opinion is no more res-integra in view

of the observations made by this court in the case of Madan Lal

v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003) 7 SCC 465. The Court

A bare reading of Section 50 shows that it only applies in

case of personal search of a person. It does not extend to

search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises

Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (1999)

jab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC

Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana (2001) 3 SCC 28).

The language of section is implicitly clear that the search has to

be in relation to a person as contrast to search of premises,

vehicles, or articles. This position was settled beyond doubt by

the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh's case. Above being the

position, the contention regarding noncompliance of Section 50

of the Act is also without any substance."

18. It appears from the evidence on record that the accused was

confronted by ASI Maya Ram and other police officials on

24.1.1996 and he was informed that he has the right to either

be searched before the gazetted officer or before a Magistrate

cused chose the later (sic former). Thereafter, the

accused was taken to the DSP, Pehowa, Shri Paramjit Singh

Ahalawat and as directed by him, the bag carried by accused

on his shoulder was searched and the charas was found in that

integra in view

Madan Lal

. The Court

A bare reading of Section 50 shows that it only applies in

case of personal search of a person. It does not extend to

search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises

Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (1999)

jab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC

.

The language of section is implicitly clear that the search has to

be in relation to a person as contrast to search of premises,

n was settled beyond doubt by

the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh's case. Above being the

position, the contention regarding noncompliance of Section 50

18. It appears from the evidence on record that the accused was

confronted by ASI Maya Ram and other police officials on

24.1.1996 and he was informed that he has the right to either

be searched before the gazetted officer or before a Magistrate

cused chose the later (sic former). Thereafter, the

accused was taken to the DSP, Pehowa, Shri Paramjit Singh

Ahalawat and as directed by him, the bag carried by accused

on his shoulder was searched and the charas was found in that

CRA-S-110-SB-

person" as laid down by this Court in the decision mentioned

Act."

15. Further, in the matter of "

(Supreme Court)50: 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 367

Court has held

person of the accused has been made to which compliance of

public place, the seizure of cont

present case. It is settled in the case of Vijaysinh(supra) that in

-2004 (O&M)

9

bag. Thus, applying the interpretation of the word "search of

person" as laid down by this Court in the decision mentioned

above, to facts of present case, it is clear that the compliance of

Section 50 of the Act is not required. Therefore, the search

conducted by the investigation officer and the evidence

collected thereby, is not illegal. Consequently,

any merit in the contention of the learned counsel of the

appellant as regards the noncompliance of Section 50 of the

Act."

in the matter of "Kallu Khan v

(Supreme Court)50: 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 367

Court has held as under:-

" 15. Simultaneously, the arguments advanced by the appellant

regarding non-compliance of Section

of any merit because no recovery of contraband from the

person of the accused has been made to which compliance of

the provision of Section 50 NDPS Act has to follow

mandatorily. In the present case, in the search of motor cycle at

public place, the seizure of cont

Therefore, compliance of Section

present case. It is settled in the case of Vijaysinh(supra) that in

the case of personal search only, the provisions of

the Act is required to be compli

vehicle as in the present case, following the judgments of

Surinder Kumar (supra) and Baljinder Singh (supra).

Considering the facts of this Court, the argument of non

interpretation of the word "search of

person" as laid down by this Court in the decision mentioned

above, to facts of present case, it is clear that the compliance of

Section 50 of the Act is not required. Therefore, the search

on officer and the evidence

collected thereby, is not illegal. Consequently, we do not find

merit in the contention of the learned counsel of the

appellant as regards the noncompliance of Section 50 of the

Kallu Khan v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2022

(Supreme Court)50: 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 367; the Hon'ble Supreme

, the arguments advanced by the appellant

Section 50 of NDPS Act is bereft

rit because no recovery of contraband from the

person of the accused has been made to which compliance of

50 NDPS Act has to follow

mandatorily. In the present case, in the search of motor cycle at

public place, the seizure of contraband was made, as revealed.

Section 50 does not attract in the

present case. It is settled in the case of Vijaysinh(supra) that in

the case of personal search only, the provisions of Section 50 of

the Act is required to be complied with but not in the case of

vehicle as in the present case, following the judgments of

Surinder Kumar (supra) and Baljinder Singh (supra).

Considering the facts of this Court, the argument of non-

interpretation of the word "search of

person" as laid down by this Court in the decision mentioned

above, to facts of present case, it is clear that the compliance of

Section 50 of the Act is not required. Therefore, the search

on officer and the evidence

we do not find

merit in the contention of the learned counsel of the

appellant as regards the noncompliance of Section 50 of the

. State of Rajasthan AIR 2022

the Hon'ble Supreme

, the arguments advanced by the appellant

of NDPS Act is bereft

rit because no recovery of contraband from the

person of the accused has been made to which compliance of

50 NDPS Act has to follow

mandatorily. In the present case, in the search of motor cycle at

raband was made, as revealed.

50 does not attract in the

present case. It is settled in the case of Vijaysinh(supra) that in

50 of

ed with but not in the case of

vehicle as in the present case, following the judgments of

Surinder Kumar (supra) and Baljinder Singh (supra).

-

CRA-S-110-SB-

16. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law and the evidence

led by the prosecution in the instant case, it is observed that in the instant

case, the recovery had taken place from a bag and not from the personal

search of

the appellant is without any substance and are rejected.

17. Learned counsel has next argued that Section 52

not been complied with as samples were not drawn before the Magi

The contention cannot be accepted.

on the consequence of such non

authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 INSC 78

held that non

NDPS Act will not automatically vitiate the trial or entitle the accused to

acquittal unless it leads to significant discrepancies in the physical

evidence that ca

the Courts ought to consider entire evidence and assess if procedural

lapses affect credibility and the

inference under Section 114(g) Indian Evidence Act depen

but Substantial compliance is sufficient. The relevant part of the order is

reproduced below:

-2004 (O&M)

10

compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act advanced by the counsel

hereby repelled."

Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law and the evidence

led by the prosecution in the instant case, it is observed that in the instant

case, the recovery had taken place from a bag and not from the personal

search of the accused. Thus, the submissions made by learned counsel for

the appellant is without any substance and are rejected.

Learned counsel has next argued that Section 52

not been complied with as samples were not drawn before the Magi

The contention cannot be accepted. This Court is conscious that the law

on the consequence of such non-

authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 INSC 78, wherein

held that non-compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52A of the

NDPS Act will not automatically vitiate the trial or entitle the accused to

acquittal unless it leads to significant discrepancies in the physical

evidence that cast doubt on the prosecution's case.

the Courts ought to consider entire evidence and assess if procedural

lapses affect credibility and the non-compliance may lead to adverse

inference under Section 114(g) Indian Evidence Act depen

Substantial compliance is sufficient. The relevant part of the order is

reproduced below:

“50. We summarize our final conclusion as under:

(I) Although Section 52A is primarily for the disposal and

destruction of seized contraband in a

beyond the immediate context of drug disposal, as it serves a

PS Act advanced by the counsel is

Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law and the evidence

led by the prosecution in the instant case, it is observed that in the instant

case, the recovery had taken place from a bag and not from the personal

the accused. Thus, the submissions made by learned counsel for

the appellant is without any substance and are rejected.

Learned counsel has next argued that Section 52-A of the NDPS Act has

not been complied with as samples were not drawn before the Magistrate.

This Court is conscious that the law

-compliance has since been

authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Aambale

, wherein the Supreme Court had

compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52A of the

NDPS Act will not automatically vitiate the trial or entitle the accused to

acquittal unless it leads to significant discrepancies in the physical

st doubt on the prosecution's case. It was further held that

the Courts ought to consider entire evidence and assess if procedural

compliance may lead to adverse

inference under Section 114(g) Indian Evidence Act depending on facts

Substantial compliance is sufficient. The relevant part of the order is

“50. We summarize our final conclusion as under: -

(I) Although Section 52A is primarily for the disposal and

destruction of seized contraband in a safe manner yet it extends

beyond the immediate context of drug disposal, as it serves a

is

Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law and the evidence

led by the prosecution in the instant case, it is observed that in the instant

case, the recovery had taken place from a bag and not from the personal

the accused. Thus, the submissions made by learned counsel for

A of the NDPS Act has

strate.

This Court is conscious that the law

compliance has since been

Bharat Aambale

the Supreme Court had

compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52A of the

NDPS Act will not automatically vitiate the trial or entitle the accused to

acquittal unless it leads to significant discrepancies in the physical

It was further held that

the Courts ought to consider entire evidence and assess if procedural

compliance may lead to adverse

ding on facts

Substantial compliance is sufficient. The relevant part of the order is

(I) Although Section 52A is primarily for the disposal and

safe manner yet it extends

beyond the immediate context of drug disposal, as it serves a

CRA-S-110-SB-

photographs of the seized substances and drawing samples

from the seized substance

process of

presence of the accused, though the same may not be done at

prepared in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed

primary evidence as per Section 52A subsection (4) of the

NDPS Act

-2004 (O&M)

11

broader purpose of also introducing procedural safeguards in

the treatment of narcotics substance after seizure inasmuch as

it provides for the preparation of inventor

photographs of the seized substances and drawing samples

therefrom in the presence and with the certification of a

magistrate. Mere drawing of samples in presence of a gazetted

officer would not constitute sufficient compliance of the

mandate under Section 52A sub-

(II) Although, there is no mandate that the drawing of samples

from the seized substance must take place at the time of seizure

as held in Mohanlal (supra), yet

process of inventorying, photographing and drawing samples of

the seized substance shall as far as possible, take place in the

presence of the accused, though the same may not be done at

the very spot of seizure.

(III) Any inventory, photographs or samples of seized

prepared in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed

under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Rules/Standing

Order(s) thereunder would have to be mandatorily treated as

primary evidence as per Section 52A subsection (4) of the

NDPS Act, irrespective of whether the substance in original is

actually produced before the court or not.

(IV) The procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s)/Rules

in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended to

guide the officers and to see that a

the officer in-charge of the investigation, and as such what is

broader purpose of also introducing procedural safeguards in

the treatment of narcotics substance after seizure inasmuch as

it provides for the preparation of inventories, taking of

photographs of the seized substances and drawing samples

therefrom in the presence and with the certification of a

magistrate. Mere drawing of samples in presence of a gazetted

officer would not constitute sufficient compliance of the

-section (2) of the NDPS Act.

(II) Although, there is no mandate that the drawing of samples

must take place at the time of seizure

as held in Mohanlal (supra), yet we are of the opinion that the

inventorying, photographing and drawing samples of

the seized substance shall as far as possible, take place in the

presence of the accused, though the same may not be done at

(III) Any inventory, photographs or samples of seized substance

prepared in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed

under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Rules/Standing

Order(s) thereunder would have to be mandatorily treated as

primary evidence as per Section 52A subsection (4) of the

, irrespective of whether the substance in original is

actually produced before the court or not.

(IV) The procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s)/Rules

in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended to

guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by

charge of the investigation, and as such what is

broader purpose of also introducing procedural safeguards in

the treatment of narcotics substance after seizure inasmuch as

ies, taking of

photographs of the seized substances and drawing samples

therefrom in the presence and with the certification of a

magistrate. Mere drawing of samples in presence of a gazetted

officer would not constitute sufficient compliance of the

(II) Although, there is no mandate that the drawing of samples

must take place at the time of seizure

the

inventorying, photographing and drawing samples of

the seized substance shall as far as possible, take place in the

presence of the accused, though the same may not be done at

substance

prepared in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed

under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Rules/Standing

Order(s) thereunder would have to be mandatorily treated as

primary evidence as per Section 52A subsection (4) of the

, irrespective of whether the substance in original is

(IV) The procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s)/Rules

in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended to

fair procedure is adopted by

charge of the investigation, and as such what is

CRA-S-110-SB-

provision or rules thereunder may lead the court to drawing an

NDPS Act or the p

-2004 (O&M)

12

required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid

therein.

(V) Mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52A

or the Standing Order(s)/Rules

the trial unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence

rendering the prosecution's case doubtful, which may not have

been there had such compliance been done. Courts should take

a holistic and cumulative view of t

exist in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and appreciate

the same more carefully keeping in mind the procedural lapses.

(VI) If the other material on record adduced by the prosecution,

oral or documentary inspires confidenc

as regards the recovery as-well as conscious possession of the

contraband from the accused persons, then even in such cases,

the courts can without hesitation proceed to hold the accused

guilty notwithstanding any procedural defec

Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

(VII) Non-compliance or delayed compliance of the said

provision or rules thereunder may lead the court to drawing an

adverse inference against the prosecution, however no hard

and fast rule can be laid down as to

be drawn, and it would all depend on the peculiar facts and

circumstances of each case.

(VIII) Where there has been lapse on the part of the police in

either following the procedure laid down in Section 52A of the

NDPS Act or the prosecution in proving the same, it will not be

required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid

compliance of the procedure under Section 52A

or the Standing Order(s)/Rules thereunder will not be fatal to

the trial unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence

rendering the prosecution's case doubtful, which may not have

been there had such compliance been done. Courts should take

a holistic and cumulative view of the discrepancies that may

exist in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and appreciate

the same more carefully keeping in mind the procedural lapses.

(VI) If the other material on record adduced by the prosecution,

oral or documentary inspires confidence and satisfies the court

well as conscious possession of the

contraband from the accused persons, then even in such cases,

the courts can without hesitation proceed to hold the accused

guilty notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of

compliance or delayed compliance of the said

provision or rules thereunder may lead the court to drawing an

adverse inference against the prosecution, however no hard

and fast rule can be laid down as to when such inference may

be drawn, and it would all depend on the peculiar facts and

(VIII) Where there has been lapse on the part of the police in

either following the procedure laid down in Section 52A of the

rosecution in proving the same, it will not be

required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid

compliance of the procedure under Section 52A

thereunder will not be fatal to

the trial unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence

rendering the prosecution's case doubtful, which may not have

been there had such compliance been done. Courts should take

he discrepancies that may

exist in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and appreciate

(VI) If the other material on record adduced by the prosecution,

e and satisfies the court

well as conscious possession of the

contraband from the accused persons, then even in such cases,

the courts can without hesitation proceed to hold the accused

t in terms of

compliance or delayed compliance of the said

provision or rules thereunder may lead the court to drawing an

adverse inference against the prosecution, however no hard

when such inference may

be drawn, and it would all depend on the peculiar facts and

(VIII) Where there has been lapse on the part of the police in

either following the procedure laid down in Section 52A of the

rosecution in proving the same, it will not be

CRA-S-110-SB-

foundational facts to show that there was non

18. Adverting to the facts of the present case t

18.05.2002. The evidence on record clearly establishes that on the very

next day the Investigating Officer p

parcels and the accused before the learned Area Magistrate, who affixed

his initials upon the sample parcels as well as the case property. The

samples thereafter remained in safe custody and were subsequently

forwarded

-2004 (O&M)

13

appropriate for the court to resort to the statutory presumption

of commission of an offence from the possession of illicit

material under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, unless the court is

otherwise satisfied as regards the seizure or recovery of such

material from the accused persons from the other material on

record.

(IX) The initial burden will lie on the accused to first lay the

foundational facts to show that there was non

Section 52A, either by leading evidence of its own or by relying

upon the evidence of the prosecution, and the standard required

would only be preponderance of probabilities.

(X) Once the foundational facts laid indicate non

Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the onus

the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that either (i) there

was substantial compliance with the mandate of Section 52A of

the NDPS Act OR (ii) satisfy the court that such non

compliance does not affect its case against the accu

standard of proof required would be beyond a reasonable

doubt.”

Adverting to the facts of the present case t

18.05.2002. The evidence on record clearly establishes that on the very

next day the Investigating Officer produced the case property, the sample

parcels and the accused before the learned Area Magistrate, who affixed

his initials upon the sample parcels as well as the case property. The

samples thereafter remained in safe custody and were subsequently

forwarded to the office of the Chemical Examiner.

appropriate for the court to resort to the statutory presumption

of commission of an offence from the possession of illicit

material under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, unless the court is

regards the seizure or recovery of such

material from the accused persons from the other material on

(IX) The initial burden will lie on the accused to first lay the

foundational facts to show that there was non-compliance of

y leading evidence of its own or by relying

upon the evidence of the prosecution, and the standard required

would only be preponderance of probabilities.

(X) Once the foundational facts laid indicate non-compliance of

Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the onus would thereafter be on

the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that either (i) there

was substantial compliance with the mandate of Section 52A of

the NDPS Act OR (ii) satisfy the court that such non-

compliance does not affect its case against the accused, and the

standard of proof required would be beyond a reasonable

Adverting to the facts of the present case the occurrence pertains to

18.05.2002. The evidence on record clearly establishes that on the very

roduced the case property, the sample

parcels and the accused before the learned Area Magistrate, who affixed

his initials upon the sample parcels as well as the case property. The

samples thereafter remained in safe custody and were subsequently

to the office of the Chemical Examiner. Section 52-A

appropriate for the court to resort to the statutory presumption

of commission of an offence from the possession of illicit

material under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, unless the court is

regards the seizure or recovery of such

material from the accused persons from the other material on

(IX) The initial burden will lie on the accused to first lay the

compliance of

y leading evidence of its own or by relying

upon the evidence of the prosecution, and the standard required

compliance of

would thereafter be on

the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that either (i) there

was substantial compliance with the mandate of Section 52A of

-

sed, and the

standard of proof required would be beyond a reasonable

he occurrence pertains to

18.05.2002. The evidence on record clearly establishes that on the very

roduced the case property, the sample

parcels and the accused before the learned Area Magistrate, who affixed

his initials upon the sample parcels as well as the case property. The

samples thereafter remained in safe custody and were subsequently

A

CRA-S-110-SB-

primarily provides a procedure for disposal of seized narcotic substances

and for treating the inventory, photographs and certified samples as

primary evidence during trial. It does not prescribe that e

would stand vitiated merely because an inventory in the prescribed

manner was not prepared, particularly where the seized property itself has

been produced before the Court and the prosecution has otherwise

established the identity and sancti

case, no prejudice has been demonstrated by the appellant. The

prosecution has duly proved the recovery, the sealing process, the

production before the Magistrate, the safe custody and the positive report

of the Che

does not strike at the root of the prosecution case.

19. It has also been argued that the samples were sent to the Chemical

Examiner after five days and that such delay renders the prosecution case

doubtful. This submission also deserves rejection. Mere delay in dispatch

of sample parcels is not by itself fatal unless the accused establishes the

possibility of tampering with the seals or the case property.

Supreme Court in

(Criminal) 97

opium when samples were sent to chemical examiners after 40 days of

recovery, however, there was no evidence that samples were tampered

with or any pre

not fatal to the case of prosecution.

sample to the office of Chemical Examiner was discussed in

Singh v. State of Punjab 2015 (4) RCR (Criminal) 25

-2004 (O&M)

14

primarily provides a procedure for disposal of seized narcotic substances

and for treating the inventory, photographs and certified samples as

primary evidence during trial. It does not prescribe that e

would stand vitiated merely because an inventory in the prescribed

manner was not prepared, particularly where the seized property itself has

been produced before the Court and the prosecution has otherwise

established the identity and sanctity of the case property. In the present

case, no prejudice has been demonstrated by the appellant. The

prosecution has duly proved the recovery, the sealing process, the

production before the Magistrate, the safe custody and the positive report

of the Chemical Examiner. Therefore, the alleged irregularity, if any,

does not strike at the root of the prosecution case.

It has also been argued that the samples were sent to the Chemical

Examiner after five days and that such delay renders the prosecution case

doubtful. This submission also deserves rejection. Mere delay in dispatch

of sample parcels is not by itself fatal unless the accused establishes the

possibility of tampering with the seals or the case property.

Supreme Court in Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab, 2008 (4) RCR

(Criminal) 97 while dealing with a case relating to recovery of 7 kgs. of

opium when samples were sent to chemical examiners after 40 days of

recovery, however, there was no evidence that samples were tampered

with or any prejudice was caused to the accused, the delay was held to be

not fatal to the case of prosecution. The aspect of delay in sending the

sample to the office of Chemical Examiner was discussed in

Singh v. State of Punjab 2015 (4) RCR (Criminal) 25

primarily provides a procedure for disposal of seized narcotic substances

and for treating the inventory, photographs and certified samples as

primary evidence during trial. It does not prescribe that every recovery

would stand vitiated merely because an inventory in the prescribed

manner was not prepared, particularly where the seized property itself has

been produced before the Court and the prosecution has otherwise

ty of the case property. In the present

case, no prejudice has been demonstrated by the appellant. The

prosecution has duly proved the recovery, the sealing process, the

production before the Magistrate, the safe custody and the positive report

mical Examiner. Therefore, the alleged irregularity, if any,

does not strike at the root of the prosecution case.

It has also been argued that the samples were sent to the Chemical

Examiner after five days and that such delay renders the prosecution case

doubtful. This submission also deserves rejection. Mere delay in dispatch

of sample parcels is not by itself fatal unless the accused establishes the

possibility of tampering with the seals or the case property. The Hon’ble

State of Punjab, 2008 (4) RCR

while dealing with a case relating to recovery of 7 kgs. of

opium when samples were sent to chemical examiners after 40 days of

recovery, however, there was no evidence that samples were tampered

judice was caused to the accused, the delay was held to be

The aspect of delay in sending the

sample to the office of Chemical Examiner was discussed in Sucha

Singh v. State of Punjab 2015 (4) RCR (Criminal) 25 holding that when

primarily provides a procedure for disposal of seized narcotic substances

and for treating the inventory, photographs and certified samples as

very recovery

would stand vitiated merely because an inventory in the prescribed

manner was not prepared, particularly where the seized property itself has

been produced before the Court and the prosecution has otherwise

ty of the case property. In the present

case, no prejudice has been demonstrated by the appellant. The

prosecution has duly proved the recovery, the sealing process, the

production before the Magistrate, the safe custody and the positive report

mical Examiner. Therefore, the alleged irregularity, if any,

It has also been argued that the samples were sent to the Chemical

Examiner after five days and that such delay renders the prosecution case

doubtful. This submission also deserves rejection. Mere delay in dispatch

of sample parcels is not by itself fatal unless the accused establishes the

The Hon’ble

State of Punjab, 2008 (4) RCR

while dealing with a case relating to recovery of 7 kgs. of

opium when samples were sent to chemical examiners after 40 days of

recovery, however, there was no evidence that samples were tampered

judice was caused to the accused, the delay was held to be

The aspect of delay in sending the

Sucha

that when

CRA-S-110-SB-

the samples were not sent to the office of Chemical Examiner within 72

hours, the prosecution and conviction cannot be vitiated on that ground

since there was no specific provision in the Act in that regard and the

instructions/standing orders i

regulate and control their internal working of Narcotic Control Bureau.

this case as has been discussed in the earlier part of the judgment, the

case property had remained in safe custody and the sample parcel

reached the office of Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Chandigarh in an

intact condition. Therefore, the delay of few days in sending the sample

to the office of Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Chandigarh is immaterial

and no prejudice is going to be caused to th

present case

that the sealed parcels along with specimen seals were handed over to

him on 23.05.2002 and that he deposited the same in the office of the

Chemical Examiner on the very same day without allowing the parcels to

be tampered

material aspect. The report of the Chemical Examiner

the seals on the parcels were found intact and tallied with the specimen

seal forwarded separately. This circumstance rules out an

tampering during the period the samples remained in police custody.

Therefore, the prosecution has successfully established every link in the

chain of custody and thus proved an unbroken chain connecting the

recovered contraband with the s

laboratory.

20. Learned counsel has argued that Sukhdev Raj, the independent witness

allegedly joined during investigation, was not examined

-2004 (O&M)

15

the samples were not sent to the office of Chemical Examiner within 72

hours, the prosecution and conviction cannot be vitiated on that ground

since there was no specific provision in the Act in that regard and the

instructions/standing orders in that respect were only the guidelines to

regulate and control their internal working of Narcotic Control Bureau.

this case as has been discussed in the earlier part of the judgment, the

case property had remained in safe custody and the sample parcel

reached the office of Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Chandigarh in an

intact condition. Therefore, the delay of few days in sending the sample

to the office of Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Chandigarh is immaterial

and no prejudice is going to be caused to th

present case, PW-2 Constable Satnam Singh has categorically deposed

that the sealed parcels along with specimen seals were handed over to

him on 23.05.2002 and that he deposited the same in the office of the

Chemical Examiner on the very same day without allowing the parcels to

be tampered with. His testimony has remained unchallenged on this

material aspect. The report of the Chemical Examiner

the seals on the parcels were found intact and tallied with the specimen

seal forwarded separately. This circumstance rules out an

tampering during the period the samples remained in police custody.

Therefore, the prosecution has successfully established every link in the

chain of custody and thus proved an unbroken chain connecting the

recovered contraband with the sample analysed by the forensic

laboratory.

Learned counsel has argued that Sukhdev Raj, the independent witness

allegedly joined during investigation, was not examined

the samples were not sent to the office of Chemical Examiner within 72

hours, the prosecution and conviction cannot be vitiated on that ground

since there was no specific provision in the Act in that regard and the

n that respect were only the guidelines to

regulate and control their internal working of Narcotic Control Bureau. In

this case as has been discussed in the earlier part of the judgment, the

case property had remained in safe custody and the sample parcel had

reached the office of Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Chandigarh in an

intact condition. Therefore, the delay of few days in sending the sample

to the office of Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Chandigarh is immaterial

and no prejudice is going to be caused to the appellant/accused. In the

Singh has categorically deposed

that the sealed parcels along with specimen seals were handed over to

him on 23.05.2002 and that he deposited the same in the office of the

Chemical Examiner on the very same day without allowing the parcels to

has remained unchallenged on this

material aspect. The report of the Chemical Examiner also confirms that

the seals on the parcels were found intact and tallied with the specimen

seal forwarded separately. This circumstance rules out any possibility of

tampering during the period the samples remained in police custody.

Therefore, the prosecution has successfully established every link in the

chain of custody and thus proved an unbroken chain connecting the

ample analysed by the forensic

Learned counsel has argued that Sukhdev Raj, the independent witness

allegedly joined during investigation, was not examined by the

the samples were not sent to the office of Chemical Examiner within 72

hours, the prosecution and conviction cannot be vitiated on that ground

since there was no specific provision in the Act in that regard and the

n that respect were only the guidelines to

In

this case as has been discussed in the earlier part of the judgment, the

had

reached the office of Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Chandigarh in an

intact condition. Therefore, the delay of few days in sending the sample

to the office of Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Chandigarh is immaterial

In the

Singh has categorically deposed

that the sealed parcels along with specimen seals were handed over to

him on 23.05.2002 and that he deposited the same in the office of the

Chemical Examiner on the very same day without allowing the parcels to

has remained unchallenged on this

confirms that

the seals on the parcels were found intact and tallied with the specimen

y possibility of

tampering during the period the samples remained in police custody.

Therefore, the prosecution has successfully established every link in the

chain of custody and thus proved an unbroken chain connecting the

ample analysed by the forensic

Learned counsel has argued that Sukhdev Raj, the independent witness

by the

CRA-S-110-SB-

prosecution alleging that he was won over by the appellant

adverse i

acceptance.

credibility of the prosecution story. In

Punjab, 2016 (2) RCR (Criminal) 707

of the official witnesses carry the same evidentiary value as that of any

other witness and their statements cannot be discarded simply on account

of their official designation. A Division Bench of this Court in

case Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab 2015 (4

an independent witness had been joined during the search and recovery

of contraband; he had appeared as a witness for the defence stating that

his signatures were procured on blank papers when he had visited the

police station in d

was not acceptable as it cannot be believed that numerous signatures on

various papers having different written material could be signed by a

witness on blank papers. The testimony of that witness was hel

unreliable and was discarded.

official/police witnesses was considered and it was observed that when

there is no allegation of any enmity against the police officials to falsely

implicate the appellants and the

against the appellants, the trial Court had rightly concluded that non

examination of independent witness of search and recovery being won

over by the accused does not raise any doubt in the prosecution case.

Even otherw

of independent witness.

-2004 (O&M)

16

prosecution alleging that he was won over by the appellant

inference ought to be drawn. This

acceptance. Non-examination of Sukhdev Raj

credibility of the prosecution story. In

Punjab, 2016 (2) RCR (Criminal) 707, it was observed that testimonies

of the official witnesses carry the same evidentiary value as that of any

other witness and their statements cannot be discarded simply on account

of their official designation. A Division Bench of this Court in

Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab 2015 (4

an independent witness had been joined during the search and recovery

of contraband; he had appeared as a witness for the defence stating that

his signatures were procured on blank papers when he had visited the

police station in drunken condition, had observed that such contention

was not acceptable as it cannot be believed that numerous signatures on

various papers having different written material could be signed by a

witness on blank papers. The testimony of that witness was hel

unreliable and was discarded. In that very judgment, credibility of

official/police witnesses was considered and it was observed that when

there is no allegation of any enmity against the police officials to falsely

implicate the appellants and there was no reason for them to depose

against the appellants, the trial Court had rightly concluded that non

examination of independent witness of search and recovery being won

over by the accused does not raise any doubt in the prosecution case.

Even otherwise, the depositions of official witnesses are at par with that

of independent witness.

prosecution alleging that he was won over by the appellant and thus an

nference ought to be drawn. This argument does not merit

Sukhdev Raj does not affect the

credibility of the prosecution story. In Krishan Kumar v. State of

, it was observed that testimonies

of the official witnesses carry the same evidentiary value as that of any

other witness and their statements cannot be discarded simply on account

of their official designation. A Division Bench of this Court in

Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab 2015 (4) RCR (Criminal) 25 when

an independent witness had been joined during the search and recovery

of contraband; he had appeared as a witness for the defence stating that

his signatures were procured on blank papers when he had visited the

runken condition, had observed that such contention

was not acceptable as it cannot be believed that numerous signatures on

various papers having different written material could be signed by a

witness on blank papers. The testimony of that witness was held to be

In that very judgment, credibility of

official/police witnesses was considered and it was observed that when

there is no allegation of any enmity against the police officials to falsely

re was no reason for them to depose

against the appellants, the trial Court had rightly concluded that non-

examination of independent witness of search and recovery being won

over by the accused does not raise any doubt in the prosecution case.

ise, the depositions of official witnesses are at par with that

an

argument does not merit

does not affect the

Krishan Kumar v. State of

, it was observed that testimonies

of the official witnesses carry the same evidentiary value as that of any

other witness and their statements cannot be discarded simply on account

of their official designation. A Division Bench of this Court in

when

an independent witness had been joined during the search and recovery

of contraband; he had appeared as a witness for the defence stating that

his signatures were procured on blank papers when he had visited the

runken condition, had observed that such contention

was not acceptable as it cannot be believed that numerous signatures on

various papers having different written material could be signed by a

d to be

In that very judgment, credibility of

official/police witnesses was considered and it was observed that when

there is no allegation of any enmity against the police officials to falsely

re was no reason for them to depose

-

examination of independent witness of search and recovery being won

over by the accused does not raise any doubt in the prosecution case.

ise, the depositions of official witnesses are at par with that

CRA-S-110-SB-

21. Furthermore, independent corroboration is a rule of prudence and not

requirement of law. It is no where provided in any statute that

independent corroboration is a mus

the prosecution is to rejected outrightly.

of PW-1 and PW

material nature has been elicited in their cross

Consequentl

demolish the prosecution case.

22. Adverting to the plea raised by the Appellant upon the telegrams

allegedly sent by the his father on 15.05.2002 suggesting that the

appellant had already been taken into ill

the alleged recovery, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not

probabilise the plea of false implication.

examined DW

booked telegra

Chief Minister of Punjab and DGP, Punjab and certified Ex.DA i.e. copy

of telegram and Ex.DB i.e. the postal receipt.

Bench of this Court, in

(Narcotics) 303

of the appellant had sent telegrams alleging his son’s illegal detention,

held that, in the absence of any previous enmity between the accused and

the police officials, the

Adverting to the facts of the present case,

during cross

been illegally detained on 10.05.2002, he neither lodged any compla

before any superior police officer nor approached any Magistrate seeking

-2004 (O&M)

17

Furthermore, independent corroboration is a rule of prudence and not

requirement of law. It is no where provided in any statute that

independent corroboration is a must and in absence thereof, the case of

the prosecution is to rejected outrightly. In the present case, the evidence

1 and PW-3 inspires complete confidence. No contradiction of

material nature has been elicited in their cross

Consequently, non-examination of Sukhdev Raj cannot by itself

demolish the prosecution case.

Adverting to the plea raised by the Appellant upon the telegrams

allegedly sent by the his father on 15.05.2002 suggesting that the

appellant had already been taken into illegal custody several days before

the alleged recovery, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not

probabilise the plea of false implication.

examined DW-1 who substantiated that the father of appellant had

booked telegrams to the Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court,

Chief Minister of Punjab and DGP, Punjab and certified Ex.DA i.e. copy

of telegram and Ex.DB i.e. the postal receipt.

Bench of this Court, in Sukhpal Singh v. State of Punjab

(Narcotics) 303, while dealing with a similar matter in which the father

of the appellant had sent telegrams alleging his son’s illegal detention,

held that, in the absence of any previous enmity between the accused and

the police officials, the plea of false implication could not be accepted.

Adverting to the facts of the present case,

during cross-examination that although according to him his son had

been illegally detained on 10.05.2002, he neither lodged any compla

before any superior police officer nor approached any Magistrate seeking

Furthermore, independent corroboration is a rule of prudence and not

requirement of law. It is no where provided in any statute that

t and in absence thereof, the case of

In the present case, the evidence

3 inspires complete confidence. No contradiction of

material nature has been elicited in their cross-examination.

examination of Sukhdev Raj cannot by itself

Adverting to the plea raised by the Appellant upon the telegrams

allegedly sent by the his father on 15.05.2002 suggesting that the

egal custody several days before

the alleged recovery, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not

probabilise the plea of false implication. In this regard the appellant

1 who substantiated that the father of appellant had

ms to the Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court,

Chief Minister of Punjab and DGP, Punjab and certified Ex.DA i.e. copy

of telegram and Ex.DB i.e. the postal receipt. The Hon’ble Division

Sukhpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022(2) DC

, while dealing with a similar matter in which the father

of the appellant had sent telegrams alleging his son’s illegal detention,

held that, in the absence of any previous enmity between the accused and

plea of false implication could not be accepted.

Adverting to the facts of the present case, DW-2 Gurtej Singh admitted

examination that although according to him his son had

been illegally detained on 10.05.2002, he neither lodged any complaint

before any superior police officer nor approached any Magistrate seeking

Furthermore, independent corroboration is a rule of prudence and not

requirement of law. It is no where provided in any statute that

t and in absence thereof, the case of

In the present case, the evidence

3 inspires complete confidence. No contradiction of

examination.

examination of Sukhdev Raj cannot by itself

Adverting to the plea raised by the Appellant upon the telegrams

allegedly sent by the his father on 15.05.2002 suggesting that the

egal custody several days before

the alleged recovery, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not

In this regard the appellant

1 who substantiated that the father of appellant had

ms to the Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court,

Chief Minister of Punjab and DGP, Punjab and certified Ex.DA i.e. copy

The Hon’ble Division

2022(2) DC

, while dealing with a similar matter in which the father

of the appellant had sent telegrams alleging his son’s illegal detention,

held that, in the absence of any previous enmity between the accused and

plea of false implication could not be accepted.

2 Gurtej Singh admitted

examination that although according to him his son had

int

before any superior police officer nor approached any Magistrate seeking

CRA-S-110-SB-

production of the appellant. Even the village Panchayat allegedly

informed by him passed no resolution in support of his version. The

telegrams relied upon merely contain unilate

appellant's father. Such communications do not constitute proof of the

truth of their contents. They merely establish that telegrams were sent

and cannot, by themselves, establish that the appellant was in fact in

illegal custod

witness has been examined to corroborate the alleged illegal detention.

The certified copy of the order produced as Ex.D

'A' also do not establish that the appellant was deta

prior to the alleged recovery

petition filed against illegal detention of one Sukhraj Singh and Pargat

Singh and thus, does not advance the cause of the appellant

Consequently, t

any reasonable doubt in the otherwise cogent prosecution case.

23. Resultantly, the recovery having been proved beyond reasonable doubt,

the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act

automatic

discharged the burden of rebutting these presumptions even on the

touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. His plea of false

implication remains a mere assertion unsupported by convincing

evidence.

24. Upon appraisal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is satisfied

that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on

18.05.2002 the appellant was found in conscious possession of four bags

containing in all 80 kilograms of poppy h

-2004 (O&M)

18

production of the appellant. Even the village Panchayat allegedly

informed by him passed no resolution in support of his version. The

telegrams relied upon merely contain unilate

appellant's father. Such communications do not constitute proof of the

truth of their contents. They merely establish that telegrams were sent

and cannot, by themselves, establish that the appellant was in fact in

illegal custody before registration of the FIR. Moreover, no independent

witness has been examined to corroborate the alleged illegal detention.

The certified copy of the order produced as Ex.D

'A' also do not establish that the appellant was deta

prior to the alleged recovery, rather the order Ex.DC pertains to a writ

petition filed against illegal detention of one Sukhraj Singh and Pargat

Singh and thus, does not advance the cause of the appellant

Consequently, the defence evidence, therefore, falls far short of creating

any reasonable doubt in the otherwise cogent prosecution case.

Resultantly, the recovery having been proved beyond reasonable doubt,

the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act

automatically operate against the appellant. The appellant has not

discharged the burden of rebutting these presumptions even on the

touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. His plea of false

implication remains a mere assertion unsupported by convincing

Upon appraisal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is satisfied

that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on

18.05.2002 the appellant was found in conscious possession of four bags

containing in all 80 kilograms of poppy h

production of the appellant. Even the village Panchayat allegedly

informed by him passed no resolution in support of his version. The

telegrams relied upon merely contain unilateral allegations made by the

appellant's father. Such communications do not constitute proof of the

truth of their contents. They merely establish that telegrams were sent

and cannot, by themselves, establish that the appellant was in fact in

y before registration of the FIR. Moreover, no independent

witness has been examined to corroborate the alleged illegal detention.

The certified copy of the order produced as Ex.DC and the report marked

'A' also do not establish that the appellant was detained by the police

rather the order Ex.DC pertains to a writ

petition filed against illegal detention of one Sukhraj Singh and Pargat

Singh and thus, does not advance the cause of the appellant.

ence, therefore, falls far short of creating

any reasonable doubt in the otherwise cogent prosecution case.

Resultantly, the recovery having been proved beyond reasonable doubt,

the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act

ally operate against the appellant. The appellant has not

discharged the burden of rebutting these presumptions even on the

touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. His plea of false

implication remains a mere assertion unsupported by convincing

Upon appraisal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is satisfied

that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on

18.05.2002 the appellant was found in conscious possession of four bags

containing in all 80 kilograms of poppy husk, the integrity of the sample

production of the appellant. Even the village Panchayat allegedly

informed by him passed no resolution in support of his version. The

ral allegations made by the

appellant's father. Such communications do not constitute proof of the

truth of their contents. They merely establish that telegrams were sent

and cannot, by themselves, establish that the appellant was in fact in

y before registration of the FIR. Moreover, no independent

witness has been examined to corroborate the alleged illegal detention.

and the report marked

ined by the police

rather the order Ex.DC pertains to a writ

petition filed against illegal detention of one Sukhraj Singh and Pargat

.

ence, therefore, falls far short of creating

Resultantly, the recovery having been proved beyond reasonable doubt,

the statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act

ally operate against the appellant. The appellant has not

discharged the burden of rebutting these presumptions even on the

touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. His plea of false

implication remains a mere assertion unsupported by convincing

Upon appraisal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is satisfied

that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on

18.05.2002 the appellant was found in conscious possession of four bags

usk, the integrity of the sample

CRA-S-110-SB-

parcels, the chain of custody and the report of the Chemical Examiner.

The testimonies of PW

complete confidence. The alleged irregularities pointed out by the

appellant neither co

any reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case. The defence

evidence is insufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions available in

favour of the prosecution.

25. The learned trial Court has correc

rightly recorded the finding of guilt. This Court finds no illegality,

perversity or infirmity warranting interference in the impugned judgment

of conviction or the order of sentence.

26. Consequently, the present appeal,

27. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2003

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge

Amritsar, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 15 of the

NDPS Act

28. The appellant, shall surrender forthwith before the learned trial Court to

undergo the remaining part of his sentence. The trial Court shall take

necessary steps to secure his custody in accordance with law.

29. Pending app

24.07.2026

Puneet

-2004 (O&M)

19

parcels, the chain of custody and the report of the Chemical Examiner.

The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3 are wholly reliable and inspire

complete confidence. The alleged irregularities pointed out by the

appellant neither constitute violations of mandatory provisions nor create

any reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case. The defence

evidence is insufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions available in

favour of the prosecution.

The learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and has

rightly recorded the finding of guilt. This Court finds no illegality,

perversity or infirmity warranting interference in the impugned judgment

of conviction or the order of sentence.

Consequently, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2003

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge

Amritsar, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 15 of the

NDPS Act are hereby affirmed.

The appellant, shall surrender forthwith before the learned trial Court to

undergo the remaining part of his sentence. The trial Court shall take

necessary steps to secure his custody in accordance with law.

application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)

Whether speaking/reasoned

Whether reportable

parcels, the chain of custody and the report of the Chemical Examiner.

3 are wholly reliable and inspire

complete confidence. The alleged irregularities pointed out by the

nstitute violations of mandatory provisions nor create

any reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case. The defence

evidence is insufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions available in

tly appreciated the evidence and has

rightly recorded the finding of guilt. This Court finds no illegality,

perversity or infirmity warranting interference in the impugned judgment

being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2003

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,

Amritsar, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 15 of the

The appellant, shall surrender forthwith before the learned trial Court to

undergo the remaining part of his sentence. The trial Court shall take

necessary steps to secure his custody in accordance with law.

any, shall also stand disposed of.

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)

JUDGE

: Yes

: Yes

parcels, the chain of custody and the report of the Chemical Examiner.

3 are wholly reliable and inspire

complete confidence. The alleged irregularities pointed out by the

nstitute violations of mandatory provisions nor create

any reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case. The defence

evidence is insufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions available in

tly appreciated the evidence and has

rightly recorded the finding of guilt. This Court finds no illegality,

perversity or infirmity warranting interference in the impugned judgment

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2003

Special Judge,

Amritsar, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 15 of the

The appellant, shall surrender forthwith before the learned trial Court to

undergo the remaining part of his sentence. The trial Court shall take