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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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). - PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 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 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.24 13.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment