1 2026:CGHC:23106-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on :05-05-2026 Judgment delivered on : 15-05-2026 CRA No. 1251 of 2024 1 - Rizwan Sakka S/o. Sh. Basruddin Sakka Aged About 20 Years R/o. Village- Jhimrawat, P.S. Pingura, District- Nuh Mewat, Haryana. --- Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- SHO, Police Station- Komakhan, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.) --- Respondent CRA No. 1522 of 2024 1 - Nijakat Sakka S/o Raghuvir Sakka Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Jhimrawat, P.S. Pinguva, District Nau Mevat (Hariyana) ---Appellant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate in CRA No.1251/2024. Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate in CRA No.1522/2024. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge CAV Judgment Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.05.15 19:49:47 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 1. Since both these appeals arise from the same judgment dated 02.02.2024 passed in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No. H- 18/2022 by the learned trial Court, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The present appeals have been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.02.2024, passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mahasamund (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No. H-18/2022, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-; in default of payment of the fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.01.2022, when Shiv Kumar Prasad PW-12 ASI of police, posted at Police Station Komakhan, was in patrolling along with the other police staff. When they reached near village Patrapali, they received secret information that one Eicher truck bearing registration No. HR 74 A 6560 in which two persons are there transporting Ganja under the scrape loaded in it and they are coming from Orissa. The secret information panchnama was prepared by police and they reached 3 near Temarinaka which was the suspected place. After some time they found one Eicher truck No. HR 74 A 6560 coming there and when they stopped the said mini truck the persons occupied the vehicle disclosed their name that Rizwan Sakka and Nijakat Sakka. On being search of their vehicle it was found that under the scrape material the appellants transporting 28 pink colour bags contained with Ganja. The contents were homogenized on the spot and two sample of 50 gram were separated. The said contents were identified by its smell, rubbing and test and it was identified to be of Ganja. Weighment witness Vijay Kumar Nirala PW-5 was called and after its weighment the total quantity of Ganja was found to be of 700 kg. which were kept in 28 bags having 25 kg. in each bag. Two other sample of 100 gram were separated from the seized Ganja and the seizure memo of Ganja, its sample packets, and seizure of mini truck bearing registration No. HR 74 A 6560, two mobile phones, 3500 kg. aluminum mixed scrape, 4030 kg. E-waste scrape, cash of Rs.5,500/- along with the documents have been made from the accused persons. Spot map has been prepared and the accused persons have been arrested. The FIR under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act has been registered and the details of the proceeding were forwarded to the senior police official. The seized sample of Ganja were sent for its FSL examination to FSL, Raipur from where FSL report Ex.-P/62 was received and it was confirmed that the sample packets contained with Ganja. Inventory of the proceeding was 4 also conducted by the Executive Magistrate and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants/accused persons before the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. 4. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. In order to establish the charge against the appellants the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstance appeared against him, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict the appellants for the alleged offence. There are non- compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 42, 50, 52, 52- A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. There is absolutely non- compliance of the Standing Order of 1/89 issued by the Central 5 Government with respect to the procedure for drawing of the samples and in absence of any proper procedure for drawing the samples, the entire procedure vitiates. Therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted for the alleged offence. The independent witness have not supported the prosecution case. There are material irregularity in the search and seizure proceedings and there are major discrepancy in the evidence of the I.O. The present appellants are only driver and helper of the vehicle and they were working under the instruction of the owner of the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle has not been made accused in the case. There is discrepancies in the sampling of the seized Ganja and also sending it to the FSL for its chemical examination and there is manipulation in the documents. Therefore, the appellants may be acquitted from the alleged offence. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that the entire procedure as prescribed under the NDPS Act has been followed in its letter and spirit and after considering the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the alleged offence. The appellants were found in possession of the vehicle in which the huge quantity of Ganja i.e. 700 kg. of Ganja was being transported by the appellants and there has been no explanation offered by the appellants as to how they came into the possession of such a huge quantity of Ganja in their vehicle. All the mandatory provisions have been duly complied with, 6 therefore, there is no irregularity or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court and the appeal of the appellants are liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 10. PW-12, Shiv Kumar Prasad is the Investigating Officer of the case. He stated in his evidence that on 08.01.2022 when he was in patrolling along with police team and reached near village Patrapali he received a secret information about illegal transportation of Ganja in Eicher truck bearing registration No.HR 74 A 6560 which was coming from Orisa. He issued notice Ex.- P/7 and P/34 to Rohit Kumar and Setram Lahare to assit in search and seizure proceeding as independent witness. The secret information panchnama Ex.-P/2 was prepared and necessity to search without warrant panchnama Ex.-P/3 was also prepared. Copy of secret information panchnama and necessity to search without warrant panchnama were forwarded to the SDO(P), Bagbahara and obtained acknowledgment. They reached on the spot and found that the suspected Eicher truck bearing No.HR 74 A 6560 coming from Orissa side, they stopped the vehicle and found the appellants were occupants in the vehicle. Rizwan was driver and Nijakat was helper of the vehicle. Notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon them which are Ex.-P/8, P/9 and they were informed about their right to be searched from any Magistrate, Gazetted Officer or police 7 authority. The accused persons gave their consent to be searched by him, which are Ex.-P/10 and P/11. The police party have also gave their own search to the appellants and talashi panchnama Ex.-P/12 was prepared, however, no incriminating articles were found. The panch witnesses have also gave their own search to the accused persons and the relevant panchnama Ex.-P/13 was prepared. Thereafter, the vehicle of the appellants was searched and on being searched 28 light pink colour packets were found which were kept under the scrape articles in which Ganja like substance were found. The vehicle talashi panchnama Ex.-P/14 was prepared. Recovery panchnama of 28 bags Ex.-P/15 was prepared in presence of the witnesses. From all the bags its contents of 50 gram each were taken out and it was homogenized and physically identified by its rubbing, smelling and testing which were identified to be of Ganja and physical identification panchnama Ex.-P/17 was prepared. Notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. Ex.-P/18 and P/19 was also given to the appellants, but they could not produce any valid document for transportation of the Ganja. 11. After recovery proceeding of 28 bags, they were opened and it was homogenized in a big plastic polythene and homogenization panchnama Ex.-P/16 was prepared. Weighment witness Vijay Kumar Nirala PW-5 was called along with the electronic weighment apparatus. His electronic weighment apparatus was also physically verified and panchnama Ex.-P/21 was prepared. 8 On being weight the total quantity of Ganja was found to be 700 kg. and weighment panchnama Ex.-P/22 was prepared. Two sample of 100 gram each were separated which were marked as Article A1 and A2 and sample panchnama Ex.-P/23 was prepared. The sample were sealed separately and specimen seal panchnama Ex.-P/27 was prepared. A separate seal panchnama Ex.-P/28 was also prepared. After service of notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act the accused persons were also searched and panchnama Ex.-P/24 and Ex.-P/25 were prepared. The seizure memo Ex.-P/26 was prepared. From the vehicle one PAN card in the name of Insaf Ali and one GST certificate have also been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/57. The appellants were arrested on the spot and their arrest have been informed to their family members. Spot map Ex.-P/32 was prepared and dehati nalisi Ex.-P/59 was recorded on the spot. After search and seizure proceeding, along with the appellants, seized Ganja and its sample packets, Eicher mini truck and the police party came back to police station and the seized articles were kept in safe custody of Malkhana through Malkhana Moharrir and obtained acknowledgment Ex.-P/49. The FIR Ex.-P/39 was registered based on the dehati nalisi for the offence under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. 12. He wrote a letter to the SDO(P) for inventory proceeding through the Executive Magistrate which is Ex.-P/60. The two sample packets of 100 gram each taken out from the seized Ganja and 9 marked as Article A1 and A2 were sent to the FSL, Raipur along with the memo of Superintendent of Police Mahasamund through Constable Santosh Sanwara and obtained FSL report Ex.-P/62. As per the FSL report Ex.-P/62 the contents of samples were found to be of Ganja. Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed. During his evidence he brought the two sample packets which were received back after its FSL examination which were in sealed condition and having marked with relevant endorsement. In cross-examination though he admitted that in the sample packets Article A1 and A2 signature of appellants are not there, he voluntarily stated that at the time of preparation of panchnama he has taken sign of the appellants in the panchnamal. The sample packets were duly sealed by seal impression of FSL. He also admitted that he has not mentioned as to on what time he received secret information, but he mentioned the time when the secret information panchnama was prepared. He also explained that both the independent witnesses were present on the spot. He denied that the signature of the independent witnesses were taken in the police station. Though he admitted that in the talashi panchnama Ex.-P/12 he has not mentioned the vehicle number of police party, however, he explained that in the rojnamcha sanha No.11 dated 08.01.2022 the vehicle number and their departure have been mentioned. He also admitted that though the consent in the document Ex.-P/10 and P/11 was not in the handwriting of 10 the appellants, but they have signed the panchnamas. This witness has been further cross-examined about the overwriting in the documents, however, he duly explained that the places where overwriting have been made it bears initial of the signature. From the cross-examination of this witness the appellants could not extract any material to disbelieve his evidence and to show the appellants were falsely implicated in the offence. This witness remained firm in saying that after receiving the secret information, he conducted the search and seizure proceeding in presence of the witnesses and seized 700 kg. Ganja from the mini Eicher truck which was in possession of the appellants for which they have no explanation or any valid documents. 13. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the provision of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not been duly complied with and therefore, entire search and seizure proceeding vitiates. PW-12 Shiv Kumar Prasad who conducted the search and seizure proceeding have explained that during patrolling he received secret information and he stopped the vehicle near forest naka Temari NH 353 road and seized Ganja frrom the possession of the appellants. Though the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act appears through documents Ex.-P/2, P/3 and P/4C which clearly shows that the copy of secret information panchnama, copy of necessity to search without warrant panchnama was forwarded to the senior official SDO(P) Bagbahara and obtained their acknowledgment on the same day 11 i.e., 08.01.2022. Even otherwise, it is a case where the search and seizure proceeding were conducted in public place for which the relevant Section 43 of the NDPS Act would be applicable. 14. Section 43 of the NDPS Act provides the powers of seizure and arrest in public place which reads as under: [43. Power of seizure and arrest in public place- Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 may:- (a) seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under this Act has been committed, and, along with such drug or substance, any animal or conveyance or article liable to confiscation under this Act, any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under this Act or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; (b) detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under this Act, and if such person has any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in his possession and such possession appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him and any other person in his company. Explanation- For the purposes of this section, the expression public place" includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public.] 15. The facts of the case as well as evidence available in the case 12 makes it clear that the vehicle was being stopped near forest naka Temari NH 335 road. While search of the vehicle 28 bags were found in the vehicle, it was found contained with cannabis Ganja. Admittedly it was being searched on the public place i.e. on the main road and the said Ganja was seized /recovered in transit which was being carrying by the accused persons on the vehicle. Therefore, the issue of non-compliance of Section 42 is not applicable in the present case and the police authority have acted under Section 43 of the NDPS Act. Section 43 of the NDPS Act, when the place of occurrence was a public road and accessibility to the public and fell within the ambit of the public place. In view of the provisions of explanation to Section 43, the Section 42 of the NDPS had no application. 16. The contraband were recovered and seized while in transit. As the contraband were recovered and seized during transit in the mini truck, as contemplated in Section 43(a) i.e. "Seize in any public place or in transit", this Court is of the considered opinion that Section 43 of the NDPS Act is applicable and as such, recording for reason for belief and for taking down of information received in writing with regard to the Commission of offence before conducting search and seizure, is not required to be complied with under Section 43 of NDPS Act. 17. In the matter of Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan vs. State of Gujarat and Another dated 30.04.2024 reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 680 has held in para 18 as under: 13 "18. Section 42 of the NDPS Act deals with search and seizure from a building, conveyance or enclosed place. When the search and seizure is effected from a public place, the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act would apply and hence, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that non-compliance of the requirement of Section 42(2) vitiates the search and seizure. Hence, the said contention is noted to be rejected." 18. In the matter of State of Haryana vs. Jarnail Singh and Others reported in 2004 (5) SCC 188 in Para 9 and 10 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "9. Sections 42 and 43, therefore, contemplate two different situations. Section 42 contemplates entry into and search of any building, conveyance or enclosed place, while Section 43 contemplates a seizure made in any public place or in transit. If seizure is made under Section 42 between sunset and sunrise, the requirement of the proviso thereto has to be complied with. There is no such proviso in Section 43 of the Act and, therefore, it is obvious that if a public conveyance is searched in a public place, the officer making the search is not required to record his satisfaction as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act for searching the vehicle between sunset and the sunrise. 10. In the instant case there is no dispute that the tanker was moving on the public highway when it was stopped and searched. Section 43 therefore clearly applied to the facts of this case. Such being the factual position there was no requirement of the officer conducting the search to record the grounds of his belief as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42. Moreover it cannot be lost sight of that the Superintendent of Police was also a member of the searching party. It has been held by this Court in M. Prabhulal vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence : (2003) 8 SCC 449 that where a search is conducted by a gazetted officer himself acting under Section 41 of the NDPS Act, it was not necessary to comply with the requirement of 14 Section 42. For this reason also, in the facts of this case, it was not necessary to comply with the requirement of the proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act." 19. In the matter of Kallu Khan vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2021 (19) SCC 197 in Para 12, 13 and 16 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: 12. After hearing and on perusal of record and the evidence brought, it is apparent that on apprehending the accused, while making search of the motor cycle, 900 gm of smack was seized to which seizure and sample memos were prepared, as proved by the departmental witnesses. In the facts of the case at hand, where the search and seizure was made from the vehicle used, by way of chance recovery from public road, the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act would apply. In this regard, the guidance may be taken from the judgments of this Court in S. K. Raju (supra) and S.K. Sakkar (supra). However, the recovery made by Pranveer Singh (PW6) cannot be doubted in the facts of this case. 13. Now reverting to the contention that the motor cycle seized in commission of offence does not belong to accused, however seizure of the contraband from the motor cycle cannot be connected to prove the guilt of accused. The Trial Court on appraisal of the testimony of witnesses, Constable Preetam Singh (PW1), Constable Sardar Singh (PW2), S.I. Pranveer Singh (PW6) and ConstableRajendra Prasad (PW8), who were members of the patrolling team and the witnesses of the seizure, proved beyond reasonable doubt, when they were on patrolling, the appellant came driving the seized vehicle from opposite side. On seeing the police vehicle, he had taken back the motor cycle which he was riding. However, the police team apprehended and intercepted the accused and made the search of vehicle, in which the seized contraband smack was found beneath the seat of the vehicle. However, while making search at public place, the contraband was seized from the motor cycle driven by the accused. Thus, recovery of the contraband from the 15 motor cycle of the appellant was a chance recovery on a public road. As per Section 43 of NDPS Act, any officer of any of the departments, specified in Section 42, is having power of seizure and arrest of the accused from a public place, or in transit of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance. The said officer may detain in search any person whom he has reason to believe that he has committed an offence punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act, in case the possession of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance appears to be unlawful. Learned senior counsel representing the appellant is unable to show any deficiency in following the procedure or perversity to the findings recorded by the Trial Court, affirmed by the High Court. The seizure of the motor cycle from him is proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the question of ownership of vehicle is not relevant. In the similar set of facts, in the case of Rizwan Khan (supra), this Court observed the ownership of the vehicle is immaterial. Therefore, the argument as advanced by learned senior counsel is of no substance and meritless. 20. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that Section 50 of NDPS Act has also not been complied with as the right to the appellants about their search have not been informed by the police authority as provided under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The provisions of Section 50 is applicable to the present search of the accused persons whereas in the present case the Ganja was recovered from the vehicle belongs to the accused persons which cannot said to be their personal search. The search of a vehicle does not comes under the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and search of a person is distinguished from search of any vehicle etc. In the matter of Kallu Khan (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme 16 Court has also considered the applicability of Section 50 of NDPS Act in search of the vehicle. In Para 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "16. Simultaneously, the arguments advanced by the appellant regarding non−compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act is bereft 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 contraband was made, as revealed. Therefore, compliance of 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−compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act advanced by the counsel is hereby repelled." 21. In the matter of State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh reported in 1999 (6) SCC 172 in Para 12 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "12. On its plain reading, Section 50 would come into play only in the case of a search of a person as distinguished from search of any premises etc. However, if the empowered officer, without any prior information as contemplated by Section 42 of the Act makes a search or causes arrest of person during the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence and on completion of that search, a contraband under the NDPS Act is also recovered, the requirements of Section 50 of the Act are not attracted." 22. In the matter of Kulwinder Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (6) SCC 674 in Para 18 and 21 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: 17 18. In Dharampal Singh v. State of Punjab, it has been ruled that the expression “possession” is not capable of precise and complete logical definition of universal application in the context of all the statutes. Recently, in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan11, after referring to certain authorities, this Court has held as follows:- “21. From the aforesaid exposition of law it is quite vivid that the term “possession” for the purpose of Section 18 of the NDPS Act could mean physical possession with animus, custody or dominion over the prohibited substance with animus or even exercise of dominion and control as a result of concealment. The animus and the mental intent which is the primary and significant element to show and establish possession. Further, personal knowledge as to the existence of the “chattel” i.e. the illegal substance at a particular location or site, at a relevant time and the intention based upon the knowledge, would constitute the unique relationship and manifest possession. In such a situation, presence and existence of possession could be justified, for the intention is to exercise right over the substance or the chattel and to act as the owner to the exclusion of others. 22. In the case at hand, the appellant, we hold, had the requisite degree of control when, even if the said narcotic substance was not within his physical control at that moment. To give an example, a person can conceal prohibited narcotic substance in a property and move out thereafter. The said person because of necessary animus would be in possession of the said substance even if he is not, at the moment, in physical control. The situation cannot be viewed differently when a person conceals and hides the prohibited narcotic substance in a public space. In the second category of cases, the person would be in possession because he has the necessary animus and the intention to retain control and dominion." 21. In State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar, it has been held that: 18 “10. We are not concerned here with the wide definition of the word “person”, which in the legal world includes corporations, associations or body of individuals as factually in these type of cases search of their premises can be done and not of their person. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the context in which it has been used in the section it naturally means a human being or a living individual unit and not an artificial person. The word has to be understood in a broad common-sense manner and, therefore, not a naked or nude body of a human being but the manner in which a normal human being will move about in a civilised society. Therefore, the most appropriate meaning of the word “person” appears to be — “the body of a human being as presented to public view usually with its appropriate coverings and clothing”. In a civilised society appropriate coverings and clothings are considered absolutely essential and no sane human being comes in the gaze of others without appropriate coverings and clothings. The appropriate coverings will include footwear also as normally it is considered an essential article to be worn while moving outside one’s home. Such appropriate coverings or clothings or footwear, after being worn, move along with the human body without any appreciable or extra effort. Once worn, they would not normally get detached from the body of the human being unless some specific effort in that direction is made. For interpreting the provision, rare cases of some religious monks and sages, who, according to the tenets of their religious belief do not cover their body with clothings, are not to be taken notice of. Therefore, the work 'person' would mean a human being with appropriate coverings and clothings and also footwear. 11. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human being. They are given a separate name 19 and are identifiable as such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the body of a human being. Depending upon the physical capacity of a person, he may carry any number of items like a bag, a briefcase, a suitcase, a tin box, a thaila, a jhola, a gathri, a holdall, a carton, etc. of varying size, dimension or weight. However, while carrying or moving along with them, some extra effort or energy would be required. They would have to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder or back or placed on the head. In common parlance it would be said that a person is carrying a particular article, specifying the manner in which it was carried like hand, shoulder, back or head, etc. Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word “person” occurring in Section 50 of the Act." 23. The next submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is the Section 52 of the NDPS Act as well as Circular of 1/89 issued by Central Government have not been complied with in the case for drawing of the samples from the seized articles. Therefore, there is substantial non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 24. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that the procedure prescribed in the Circular 1/89 issued by the Central Government has not been followed and the samples have been drawn in a defective manner. The public authorities should have drawn sample from each of the packets before homogenization or they should have drawn the sample from the packets seized from the vehicle randomly, but the procedure 20 drawn by the police that first they have homogenized the entire quantity of cannabis (Ganja) and thereafter, drawing 2 samples of 100 gram each is the defective procedure which vitiates the entire search proceedings. Though it reflect from the evidence available on record that when the police stopped the vehicle they found the Ganja kept in 28 pink colour bags under the scrape articles. On the spot it was homogenized and 2 samples of 100 gram each were drawn. The Standing order 1/89 for drawing of the sample completely ignored by the police authorities and non-compliance of the procedure for drawing of the sample vitiates the entire search and seizure proceedings. 25. Recently in the matter of Bharat Aambale vs. The State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 250 of 2025, order dated 06.01.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that irrespective of any failure to follow the procedure laid under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act if the other material on record adduced by the prosecution inspires confidence and satisfies the Court regarding both recovery and possession of the contraband and from the accused, then even in such cases the Courts can without hesitation proceed for conviction notwithstanding any procedural difficulty in terms of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. 26. In the matter of Bharat Aambale (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 25 to 37 has held as under: 25. In Noor Aga (supra) the order of conviction had been set- aside not just on the ground of violation of Section 52A but due to several other discrepancies in the physical evidence as 21 to the colour and weight, and due to the lack of any independent witnesses. In fact, this Court despite being conscious of the procedural deficiencies in the said case in terms of Section 52A observed that the matter may have been entirely different if there were no other discrepancies or if the other material on record were found to be convincing or supported by independent witnesses. The relevant observations read as under: - “107. The seal was not even deposited in the malkhana. As no explanation whatsoever has been offered in this behalf, it is difficult to hold that sanctity of the recovery was ensured. Even the malkhana register was not produced. xxx xxx xxx 108. There exist discrepancies also in regard to the time of recovery. The recovery memo, Exhibit PB, shows that the time of seizure was 11.20 p.m. PW 1 Kulwant Singh and PW 2 K.K. Gupta, however, stated that the time of seizure was 8.30 p.m. The appellant's defence was that some carton left by some passenger was passed upon him, being a crew member in this regard assumes importance (see Jitendra para 6). The panchnama was said to have been drawn at 10 p.m. as per PW 1 whereas PW 2 stated that panchnama was drawn at 8.30 p.m. Exhibit PA, containing the purported option to conduct personal search under Section 50 of the Act, only mentioned the time when the flight landed at the airport. xxx xxx xxx 111. In a case of this nature, where there are a large number of discrepancies, the appellant has been gravely prejudiced by their non-examination. It is true that what matters is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity thereof but in a case of this nature where procedural safeguards were required to be strictly complied with, it is for the prosecution to explain why the material witnesses had not been examined. The 22 matter might have been different if the evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material objects was found to be convincing. The statement of the investigating officer is wholly unsubstantiated. There is nothing on record to show that the said witnesses had turned hostile. Examination of the independent witnesses was all the more necessary inasmuch as there exist a large number of discrepancies in the statement of official witnesses in regard to search and seizure of which we may now take note.” (Emphasis supplied) 26. Non-compliance or delayed compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the Rules / Standing Order(s) thereunder may lead the court to draw 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 circumstances of each case. Such delay or deviation from Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the Standing Order(s) / Rules thereunder will not, by itself, be fatal to the case of the prosecution, unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence which may not have been there had such compliance been done. What is required is that the courts take a holistic and cumulative view of the discrepancies that exist in the physical evidence adduced by the prosecution and correlate or link the same with any procedural lapses or deviations. Thus, whenever, there is any deviation or non- compliance of the procedure envisaged under Section 52A, the courts are required to appreciate the same keeping in mind the discrepancies that exist in the prosecution’s case. In such instances of procedural error or deficiency, the courts ought to be extra-careful and must not overlook or brush aside the discrepancies lightly and rather should scrutinize the material on record even more stringently to satisfy itself of the aspects of possession, seizure or recovery of such material in the first place. 27. In such circumstances, particularly where there has been lapse on the part of the police in either following the 23 procedure laid down in Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the prosecution in adequately proving compliance of the same, it would not be appropriate for the courts 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. Similarly, irrespective of any failure to follow the procedure laid under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, if the other material on record adduced by the prosecution inspires confidence and satisfies the court regarding both the recovery and possession of the contraband from the accused, then even in such cases, the courts can without hesitation proceed for conviction notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. 28. In Khet Singh v. Union of India reported in (2002) 4 SCC 380 this Court held that the Standing Order(s) issued by the NCB and the procedure envisaged therein is only intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer-in-charge of the investigation. It further observed that there may, however, be circumstances in which it would not be possible to follow these guidelines to the letter, particularly in cases of chance recovery or lack of proper facility being available at the spot. In such circumstances of procedural illegality, the evidence collected thereby will not become inadmissible and rather the courts would only be required to consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice had been caused to the accused or not. Further it directed, that in such cases of procedural lapses or delays, the officer would be duty bound to indicate and explain the reason behind such delay or deficiency whilst preparing the memo. The relevant observations read as under: - “5. It is true that the search and seizure of contraband article is a serious aspect in the matter of investigation related to offences under the NDPS Act. The NDPS Act and the Rules framed thereunder have laid down a 24 detailed procedure and guidelines as to the manner in which search and seizure are to be effected. If there is any violation of these guidelines, the courts would take a serious view and the benefit would be extended to the accused. The offences under the NDPS Act are grave in nature and minimum punishment prescribed under the statute is incarceration for a long period. As the possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance by itself is made punishable under the Act, the seizure of the article from the appellant is of vital importance. xxx xxx xxx 10. The instructions issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi are to be followed by the officer-in- charge of the investigation of the crimes coming within the purview of the NDPS Act, even though these instructions do not have the force of law. They are intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer-in-charge of the investigation. It is true that when a contraband article is seized during investigation or search, a seizure mahazar should be prepared at the spot in accordance with law. There may, however, be circumstances in which it would not have been possible for the officer to prepare the mahazar at the spot, as it may be a chance recovery and the officer may not have the facility to prepare a seizure mahazar at the spot itself. If the seizure is effected at the place where there are no witnesses and there is no facility for weighing the contraband article or other requisite facilities are lacking, the officer can prepare the seizure mahazar at a later stage as and when the facilities are available, provided there are justifiable and reasonable grounds to do so. In that event, where the seizure mahazar is prepared at a later stage, the officer should indicate his reasons as to why he had not prepared the mahazar at the spot of recovery. If there is any inordinate delay in preparing the seizure mahazar, that may give an 25 opportunity to tamper with the contraband article allegedly seized from the accused. There may also be allegations that the article seized was by itself substituted and some other items were planted to falsely implicate the accused. To avoid these suspicious circumstances and to have a fair procedure in respect of search and seizure, it is always desirable to prepare the seizure mahazar at the spot itself from where the contraband articles were taken into custody. xxx xxx xxx 16. Law on the point is very clear that even if there is any sort of procedural illegality in conducting the search and seizure, the evidence collected thereby will not become inadmissible and the court would consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice had been caused to the accused. If the search and seizure was in complete defiance of the law and procedure and there was any possibility of the evidence collected likely to have been tampered with or interpolated during the course of such search or seizure, then, it could be said that the evidence is not liable to be admissible in evidence.” (Emphasis supplied) 29. A similar view as above was reiterated in the decision of State of Punjab v. Makhan Chand reported in (2004) 3 SCC 453 wherein this Court after examining the purport of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Standing Order(s) issued thereunder, held that the procedure prescribed under the said order is merely intended to guide the officers to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in charge of the investigation and they were not inexorable rules. The relevant observations read as under: - “10. This contention too has no substance for two reasons. Firstly, Section 52-A, as the marginal note indicates, deals with “disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances”. Under sub-section (1), the Central Government, by a notification in the Official Gazette, is empowered to specify certain narcotic drugs 26 or psychotropic substances, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space and such other relevant considerations, so that even if they are material objects seized in a criminal case, they could be disposed of after following the procedure prescribed in sub-sections (2) and (3). If the procedure prescribed in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Bharat Aambale vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 January, 2025 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/94312390/ 27 Section 52-A is complied with and upon an application, the Magistrate issues the certificate contemplated by sub-section (2), then sub-section (4) provides that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such inventory, photographs of narcotic drugs or substances and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) of Section 52-A as certified by the Magistrate, would be treated as primary evidence in respect of the offence. Therefore, Section 52-A(1) does not empower the Central Government to lay down the procedure for search of an accused, but only deals with the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 11. Secondly, when the very same Standing Orders came up for consideration in Khet Singh v. Union of India this Court took the view that they are merely intended to guide the officers to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in charge of the investigation. It was also held that they were not inexorable rules as there could be circumstances in which it may not be possible for the seizing officer to prepare the mahazar at the spot, if it is a chance recovery, where the officer may not have the facility to prepare the seizure mahazar at the spot itself. Hence, we do not find any substance in this contention.” (Emphasis supplied) 30. Thus, from above it is clear that the procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s) / Rules in terms of Section 52A of 27 the NDPS Act is only intended to guide the officers and to ensure that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer- in- charge of the investigation, and as such what is required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid therein. We say so because, due to varying circumstances, there may be situations wherein it may not always be possible to forward the seized contraband immediately for the purpose of sampling. This could be due to various factors, such as the sheer volume of the contraband, the peculiar nature of the place of seizure, or owing to the volatility of the substance so seized that may warrant slow and safe handling. There could be situations where such contraband after being sampled cannot be preserved due to its hazardous nature and must be destroyed forthwith or vice-verse where the nature of the case demands that they are preserved and remain untouched. Due to such multitude of possibilities or situations, neither can the police be realistically expected to rigidly adhere to the procedure laid down in Section 52A or its allied Rules / Orders, nor can a strait-jacket formula be applied for insisting compliance of each procedure in a specified timeline to the letter, due to varying situations or requirements of each case. Thus, what is actually required is only a substantial compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Standing Order(s) / Rules framed thereunder, and any discrepancy or deviation in the same may lead the court to draw an adverse inference against the police as per the facts of each and every case. When it comes to the outcome of trial, it is only after taking a cumulative view of the entire material on record including such discrepancies, that the court should proceed either to convict or acquit the accused. Non- compliance of the procedure envisaged under Section 52A may be fatal only in cases where such non- compliance goes to the heart or root of the matter. In other words, the discrepancy should be such that it renders the entire case of the prosecution doubtful, such as instances where there are significant discrepancies in the colour or description of the substance seized from that indicated in the FSL report as was the case in Noor Aga (supra), or where the contraband was mixed in and stored with some other 28 commodity like vegetables and there is no credible indication of whether the narcotic substance was separated and then weighed as required under the Standing Order(s) or Rules, thereby raising doubts over the actual quantity seized as was the case in Mohammed Khalid (supra), or where the recovery itself is suspicious and uncorroborated by any witnesses such as in Mangilal (supra), or where the bulk material seized in contravention of Section 52A was not produced before the court despite being directed to be preserved etc. These illustrations are only for the purposes of brining clarity on what may constitute as a significant discrepancy in a given case, and by no means is either exhaustive in nature or supposed to be applied mechanically in any proceeding under the NDPS Act. It is for the courts to see what constitutes as a significant discrepancy, keeping in mind the peculiar facts, the materials on record and the evidence adduced. At the same time, we may caution the courts, not to be hyper-technical whilst looking into the discrepancies that may exist, like slight differences in the weight, colour or numbering of the sample etc. The Court may not discard the entire prosecution case looking into such discrepancies as more often than not an ordinarily an officer in a public place would not be carrying a good scale with him, as held in Noor Aga (supra). It is only those discrepancies which particularly have the propensity to create a doubt or false impression of illegal possession or recovery, or to overstate or inflate the potency, quality or weight of the substance seized that may be pertinent and not mere clerical mistakes, provided they are explained properly. Whether, a particular discrepancy is critical to the prosecution’s case would depend on the facts of each case, the nature of substance seized, the quality of evidence on record etc. 31. At the same time, one must be mindful of the fact that Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only a procedural provision dealing with seizure, inventory, and disposal of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and does not exhaustively lay down the evidentiary rules for proving seizure or recovery, nor does it dictate the manner in which evidence is to be led 29 during trial. It in no manner prescribes how the seizure or recovery of narcotic substances is to be proved or what can be led as evidence to prove the same. Rather, it is the general principles of evidence, as enshrined in the Evidence Act that governs how seizure or recovery may be proved. 32. Thus, the prosecution sans the compliance of the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act will not render itself helpless but can still prove the seizure or recovery of contraband by leading cogent evidence in this regard such as by examining the seizing officer, producing independent witnesses to the recovery, or presenting the original quantity of seized substances before the court. The evidentiary value of these materials is ultimately to be assessed and looked into by the court. The court should consider whether the evidence inspires confidence. The court should look into the totality of circumstances and the credibility of the witnesses, being mindful to be more cautious in their scrutiny where such procedure has been flouted. The cumulative effect of all evidence must be considered to determine whether the prosecution has successfully established the case beyond reasonable doubt as held in Noor Aga (supra). 33. Even in cases where there is non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 52A, it does not necessarily vitiate the trial or warrant an automatic acquittal. Courts have consistently held that procedural lapses must be viewed in the context of the overall evidence. If the prosecution can otherwise establish the chain of custody, corroborate the seizure with credible testimony, and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the mere non-compliance with Section 52A may not be fatal. The Bharat Aambale vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 January, 2025 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/94312390/ 29 emphasis must be on substantive justice rather than procedural technicalities, and keeping in mind that the salutary objective of the NDPS Act is to curb the menace of drug trafficking. 34. At this stage we may clarify the scope and purport of Section 52A sub-section (4) with a view to obviate any confusion. Sub-section (4) of Section 52A provides that every court trying an offence under the NDPS Act, shall treat the 30 inventory, photographs and samples of the seized substance that have been certified by the magistrate as primary evidence. 35. What this provision entails is that, where the seized substance after being forwarded to the officer empowered is inventoried, photographed and thereafter samples are drawn therefrom as per the procedure prescribed under the said provision and the Rules / Standing Order(s), and the same is also duly certified by a magistrate, then such certified inventory, photographs and samples has to mandatorily be treated as primary evidence. The use of the word “shall” indicates that it would be mandatory for the court to treat the same as primary evidence if twin conditions are fulfilled being (i) that the inventory, photographs and samples drawn are certified by the magistrate AND (ii) that the court is satisfied that the entire process was done in consonance and substantial compliance with the procedure prescribed under the provision and its Rules / Standing Order(s). 36. Even where the bulk quantity of the seized material is not produced before the court or happens to be destroyed or disposed in contravention of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the same would be immaterial and have no bearing on the evidentiary value of any inventory, photographs or samples of such substance that is duly certified by a magistrate and prepared in terms of the said provision. We say so, because sub-section (4) of Section 52A was inserted to mitigate the issue of degradation, pilferage or theft of seized substances affecting the very trial. It was often seen that, due to prolonged trials, the substance that was seized would deteriorate in quality or completely disappear even before the trial could proceed, by the time the trial would commence, the unavailability of such material would result in a crucial piece of evidence to establish possession becoming missing and the outcome of the trial becoming a foregone conclusion. The legislature being alive to this fact, thought fit to introduce an element of preservation of such evidence of possession of contraband in the form of inventory, photographs and samples and imbued certain procedural safeguards and supervision through the requirement of certification by a magistrate, which 31 is now contained in sub-section (4) of Section 52A. In other words, any inventory, photographs or samples of seized substance that was prepared in substantial compliance of the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Rules / Standing Order(s) thereunder would have to mandatorily be treated as primary evidence, irrespective of the fact that the bulk quantity has not been produced and allegedly destroyed without any lawful order. 37. Section 52A sub-section (4) should not be conflated as a rule of evidence in the traditional sense, i.e., it should not be construed to have laid down that only the certified inventory, photographs and samples of seized substance will be primary evidence and nothing else. The rule of ‘Primary Evidence’ or ‘Best Evidence’ is now well settled. In order to prove a fact, only the best evidence to establish such fact must be led and adduced which often happens to be the original evidence itself. The primary evidence for proving possession will always be the seized substance itself. However, in order to mitigate the challenges in preservation of such substance till the duration of trial, due to pilferage, theft, degradation or any other related circumstances, the legislature consciously incorporated sub-section (4) in Section 52A to bring even the inventory, photographs or samples of such seized substance on the same pedestal as the original substance, and by a deeming fiction has provided that the same be treated as primary evidence, provided they have been certified by a magistrate in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed. This, however, does not mean that where Section 52A has not been complied, the prosecution would be helpless, and cannot prove the factum of possession by adducing other primary evidence in this regard such as by either producing the bulk quantity itself, or examining the witnesses to the recovery etc. What Section 52A sub-section (4) of the NDPS Act does is it creates a new form of primary evidence by way of a deeming fiction which would be on par with the original seized substance as long as the same was done in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed thereunder, however, the said provision by no means renders the other evidence in original to be excluded as primary 32 evidence, it neither confines nor restricts the manner of proving possession to only one mode i.e., through such certified inventory, photographs or samples such that all other material are said to be excluded from the ambit of ‘evidence’, rather it can be said that the provision instead provides one additional limb of evidentiary rule in proving such possession. Thus, even in the absence of compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the courts cannot simply overlook the other cogent evidence in the form of the seized substance itself or the testimony of the witnesses examined, all that the courts would be required in the absence of any such compliance is to be more careful while appreciating the evidence. 27. Further in Para 41 and 42 of the said judgment of Bharat Aambale (supra) held that: 41. As per Clause 2.5 of the Standing Order No. 1 of 89 i.e., the relevant standing order in force at the time of seizure, where multiple packages or packets are seized, they first have to be subjected to an identification test by way of a colour test to ascertain which packets are of the same sized, weigh and contents. Thereafter, all packets which are identical to each other in all respects will be bunched in lots, in the case of ganja, they may be bunched in lots of 40 packets each. Thereafter from each lot, one sample and one in duplicate has to be drawn. The relevant clause reads as under: - “2.5 However, when the packages/containers seized together are of identical size and weight, bearing identical markings, and the contents of each package given identical results on colour test by the drug identification kit, conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respects, the packages/containers may be carefully bunched in lots of ten packages/containers except in the case of ganja and hashish (charas), where it may be bunched in lots of 40 such packages/containers. For each such lot of packages/containers, one sample (in duplicate) may be drawn.” 33 42. As per Clause 2.8 of the Standing Order No. 1 of 89, while drawing a sample from a particular lot, representative samples are to be drawn, in other words, equal quantity has to be taken from each packet in a particular lot, that then has to be mixed to make one composite sample. The relevant clause reads as under: - “2.8 While drawing one sample (in duplicate) from a particular lot, it must be ensured that representative samples in equal quantity are taken from each package/container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot.” 28. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court we again go through the evidence of witnesses. 29. Topsingh Dhruv (PW-1) is patwari who prepared the spot map Ex.-P/1. 30. PW-2 Tikeshwar is Constable posted at SDO(P) office, Bagbahara as Reader. He stated in his evidence that on 08.01.2022 he received the copy of the secret information panchnama and necessity to search search without warrant panchnama from the Constable of Komakhan Police Station and he issued acknowledgment. He received the original register Ex.- P/4 and its attested true copy Ex.-P/4C in which the relevant entries have been made at Sl. No.1. On 10.01.2022 he also received copy of the report of the details of the proceeding and issued acknowledgment. Copy of the report is Ex.-P/5 and it was also endorsed in Sl. No.1A of the register Ex.-P/6. In cross- examination he stated that at the time when he received copy of the secret information panchnama and search without warrant 34 panchnama the SDO(P) was on patrolling and not present in the office. He remained firm in saying that he received the relevant documents from the police station Komakhan and issued acknowledgment for the same. 31. PW-3 Rohit Kumar Sahu and PW-4 Setram are independent witnesses, though both of them have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case, but both of them have admitted their signatures in the documents Ex.-P/2 to P/32. 32. PW-5 Vijay Nirala is weighment witness, he too has turned hostile, however, he also admitted his signature over weighment panchnama Ex.-P/22 and physical verification panchnama of the weighment apparatus Ex.-P/21. 33. PW-6 Krishna Patel is constable posted at Police Station Komakhan who has taken the coy of the secret information panchnama Ex.-P/2 and necessity to search without warrant panchanama Ex.-P/3 to the office of the SDO(P) Bagbahara and obtained acknowledgment. His duty certificate is Ex.-P/37. Nothing in his cross-examination which makes his evidence doubtful and remained firm in the proceeding which he conducted during search and seizure. 34. PW-7 Siddheshwar Pratap Singh is Inspector of the police posted at Police Station Komakhan who stated in his evidence that on the basis of dehati nalisi he registered the FIR which is Ex.-P/39. He forwarded report of the details of the proceeding to the SDO(P) office Bagbahara and obtained acknowledgment. The 35 said report is Ex.-P/5. For inventory proceeding under Section 52A of the NDPS Act he sent memo to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bagbahara and then the inventory was conducted on 23.03.2022 by the Executive Magistrate Bagbahara at Malkhana of Komakhan police station. The inventory proceeding was conducted and it was verified by the Executive Magistrate and photography of the inventory proceeding was also done. He too was present during the inventory proceeding and the inventory under Section 52A of the NDPS Act is Ex.-P/40 and P/41. Ex.-P/42 and P/43 is the notices issued to the witnesses to appear in the inventory proceeding. In cross-examination he reiterated the proceeding which he conducted during the investigation. Though, he admitted that in the photographs taken during the inventory, dates have not been mentioned, but that itself is not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of this this witness. It further transpires that the inventory was duly conducted in the presence of the witnesses as well as this witness. 35. PW-8 Yogesh Dhruv is Constable posted at Police Station Komakhan and he was a member of search party and he called the weighment witness Vijay Nirala PW-5. He also proved that on being search, 700 kg. Ganja was recovered from the accused persons from their vehicle. 36. PW-9 Ramesh Mehta is Executive Magistrate who conducted the inventory proceeding under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. He 36 stated in his evidence that on 23.03.2022 he conducted the inventory at Malkhana of Komakhan police station. The bags in which the Ganja was kept were taken out from the Malkhana in presence of the witnesses, which was weighed by weigment apparatus and found total 671.0422 kg. out of which 100 gram Ganja was taken out in a plastic box and sealed separately. The photography was also done and the remaining Ganja was refilled in the bags and it was again kept in the Malkhana. The proceeding panchnama Ex.-P/40 was prepared in which his signature is there. The sampling and photography verification document is Ex.-P/45, the verification of the weighment apparatus document is Ex.-P/46 and weighment panchnama is Ex.-P/47. His verification report is Ex.-P/47 and the photographs are Article A1 to A4 . In his cross-examination the defence questioned about colour of the bags in which Ganja was kept, place from which the weighment apparatus were called and also seal impression in the documents. From the entire evidence of this witness the defence could not elicit any substantive material which makes his evidence doubtful or to disbelieve inventory proceeding conducted by him. 37. PW-10 Jitendra Kumar Singh is Head Constable posted as Malkhana Moharrir at Police Station Komakhan. He stated in his evidence that on 08.01.2022 he received Eicher Mini Truck bearing No.HR 774 A 6560, 28 light pink colour bags contained with 699.800 kg. Ganja duly sealed, 2 FSL packets marked with 37 article, mobile phone, two driving licence, one PAN card, RTO papers of the said vehicle, E-bill, builty to keep it in safe custody of Malkhana and he issued acknowledgment Ex.-P/49. He endorsed the relevant entry in Sl. No.3 of the register Ex.-P/50. He also endorsed the relevant entries in the rojnamcha about departure of the police party which is Ex.-P/51 and P/52. In his cross-examination also there is nothing substantive elicited by the defence. He denied the suggestion given by defence that he signed the document Ex.-P/49 and P/50 on the instance of Shiv Kumar, Assistant Sub-Inspector. He denied that he has not received the articles as has been mentioned in document Ex.-P/49. 38. PW-11 Santosh Sanwara is Constable posted at Police Station Komakhan who has taken the sample packets, Article A1 and A2 to FSL, Raipur along with memo of Superintendent of Police dated 10.01.2022. He deposited the sample packets to FSL, Raipur on the same day and obtained acknowledgment and returned back to police station on 12.01.2022. The acknowledgment obtained from the FSL, Raipur is Ex.-P/55 and the memo of Superintendent of Police is Ex.-P/56. In his cross- examination he denied the suggestion given by defence about tampering of sample or delayed depositing the samples in the FSL. He clearly stated that on the same day he deposited the sample to the FSL when he received the same for carrying it to the FSL. 38 39. PW-13 Kapil Chandra is Deputy Superintendent of Police posted at Bagbahara who proved the receiving copy of the secret information panchnama and necessity to search without warrant panchnama which have been received by the office on 08.01.2022. 40. From the evidence of the witnesses though the independent witnesses have turned hostile, however, from the evidence of PW-12 and other police witnesses the entire search and seizure proceeding have been found genuine and correct procedure have been drawn by the police persons. The seizure of Ganja and its weight and sample were proved by the Executive Magistrate and nothing adverse could be found to disbelieve their evidence which further proves that the appellants were found in possession of such a huge quantity of Ganja in their vehicle. The appellants did not able to make out any palpability to make good their case and there has been non-compliance of any mandatory provision of the NDPS Act which affect the genuineness of the prosecution’s case or to create any suspicion on the search and seizure proceeding. The appellants did not able to impute any palpability to make good their case that there has been non- compliance of any mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act or to create any suspicion on the search and seizure proceeding. 41. There is no material available on record so as to arrived at finding that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. Section 20 of the NDPS Act provides that whichever in 39 contravention of any provisions of this Act or any rule made therein possess cannabis (Ganja) shall be punished in accordance with the said provisions. Section 20 (b) uses the "possess". In the present case the appellants were found in possession of 700 kg of Ganja in the vehicle which they were carrying at the relevant time. The judgment passed by learned trial Court is quite detailed judgment which has dealt with every aspect of the matter and the analysis made therein clearly proves the appellant has committed the offence in question and was transporting cannabis (Ganja) weighing 700 kg. They could not give any suggestion as to how that huge quantity of Ganja came to be found in the vehicle in which the appellants were in occupation. 42. The FSL report Ex.-P/62 further proves that the sample packets of Ganja which were drawn from the total quantity of Ganja were found to be contained with Ganja contents and further corroborates the allegation against the appellants. 43. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same needs no interference as such the judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded to the appellants is hereby affirmed. 44. In the result, both these appeals filed by the appellants are 40 hereby dismissed. The appellants are reported to be in jail. They shall serve the remaining period of jail sentence as has been awarded to them by the learned trial Court. 45. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 46. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil