1 CGHC010489232025 2026:CGHC:31937-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2443 of 2025 1 - Yashwant Kumar Vapche S/o Indraram Vapche Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Gohra Ps Baihar Distt. Balaghat ( Madhya Pradesh ) 2 - Bharat Kumar Dhiwar S/o Shri Raghunath Dhiwar Aged About 27 Years Village Dindayal Colony House No. 310 Mangla Ps Civil Line Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Singhoda, Distt. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27/07/2026 1. The present appeal has been listed for consideration of I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however considering the fact that the appellants are in jail since VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.07.30 10:51:00 +0530 2 02.10.2019, with the consent of the parties, the appeal itself is being heard finally. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is disposed of. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.11.2025, passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS), Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No. 3 of 2020, whereby the appellants are convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced him for R.I. for 15-15 years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000-1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 1-1 year to each of the appellants. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 02.10.2019, for suspected vehicle checking, the police party of police station Singhoda proceeded towards main road near Riyaz Dhaba. While vehicle checking, they stopped Hyundai Accent Car bearing No. CG 04 HA 7921. the driver disclosed his name as Yashwant Kumar Vapche and the co-passenger as Bharat Kumar Dhiwar. On being interrogation, they disclosed that they are transporting ganja from Bargadh to Bilaspur. On being checking, from the dickey of said car, total 102 packets wrapped with plastic tape was recovered in which ganja like substance were found. The recovery of ganja was informed to the SDOP Saraipali and panchnama (exhibit P-6) was prepared. Notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (exhibit P-7 and P-8) was given to the accused persons and then they gave their consent to be searched by the police officials and 3 panchnama (exhibit P-9) was prepared. The police and the independent witnesses gave their own search to the accused persons and relevant panchnama (exhibit P-10 and P-11) were prepared. Recovery panchnama (exhibit P-12) was prepared. Notice under Section 91 of CRPC (exhibit P-30 and P-31) was also given to the accused persons, but they could not produce any document of its valid possession. The contents of the packets were physically identified by rubbing, smelling and taste and physical identification panchnama (exhibit P-14). The said ganja was seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-13). 4. The seized ganja was homogenized on the spot and homogenization panchnama (exhibit P-15) was prepared. Two samples of 100 gram each was separated and the samples were marked as A-1 and A-2 and it was sealed. On being weighed, the total quantity of ganja was found to be 102 KG and weighment panchnama (exhibit P-4) was prepared. Seizure memo (exhibit P-18) was prepared, the accused persons were arrested and their arrest have been informed to their family members. The police party, seized ganja and other articles along with the accused persons came to police station, where the FIR (exhibit P-37) was registered against the accused persons for the offence under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act. the seized ganja and other articles were kept in safe custody of malkhana of police station and obtained acknowledgment (exhibit P-26). The details of the proceedings have been recorded in rojnamcha (exhibit P-36). The details of the proceedings were also forwarded to the SDOP Saraipali through the 4 document (exhibit P-22). The sample packets of seized ganja along with the memo of Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund were sent for its chemical examination to the State FSL Raipur and obtained acknowledgment (exhibit P-24A) from where the report (exhibit P-38) was received and ganja contents were found in the sent articles. Spot map (exhibit P-1) and panchnama (exhibit P-2) were prepared by the patwari. The ownership details of the seized car No. CG 04 HA 7921 was also obtained from RTO Raipur, which is exhibit P-41 and the accused Yashwant Vapche was found to be owner of the said vehicle. The inventory was also conducted by the Executive Magistrate and physical verification panchnama (exhibit P-23A) and contraband identification panchnama (exhibit P-44) and inventory (exhibit P-45) were prepared. The verification report of the Executive Magistrate is exhibit P-24 and the photographs are exhibit P-25. A memo (exhibit P- 43) was also sent to the Superintendent of Police for initiation of confiscation proceedings of the seized car. Statement of the witnesses have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons before the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act. 5. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 6. In order to establish the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the CRPC have also been 5 recorded, in which they denied the circumstance appears against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution the learned trial Court has convicted the accused persons and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 8. 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 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 appellants cannot be convicted for the alleged offence. The independent witnesses 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 investigating officer. There is no evidence, as to when the sample packets were taken out from the malkhana for sending it to FSL and when the sample packets were received back. There is no relevant entries made in the register for the same. He would also submit that the inventory was conducted by the Executive 6 Magistrate and not by the Judicial Magistrate. No specimen seal was sent along with the sample packets of ganja to the FSL and the prosecution has failed to prove that the sample packets of ganja were intact from the date of its seizure till reaching to the FSL. The evidence produced by the prosecution are inconsistent on the material point of allegation and are not sufficient to hold them guilty for the alleged offence under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence may be set aside and the appellants may be acquitted from the alleged offences. 9. 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. 102 KG of cannabis (Ganja) was being found 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 cannabis (Ganja) in their vehicle. All the mandatory provisions have been duly complied with, therefore, there is no irregularity or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court and the appeal of the appellants is liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 7 11. PW-12 Ashok Yadav, the then Station House Officer of Police Station Singhoda, deposed that on 02.10.2019 he, along with the police party, proceeded for vehicle checking near Riyaz Dhaba after making the requisite rojnamcha entry (exhibit P-29). During checking, a Hyundai Accent Car bearing registration No. CG-04-HA-7921 was intercepted. The driver identified himself as Yashwant Kumar Vapche and the co- passenger as Bharat Kumar Dhiwar, who, upon interrogation, disclosed that they were transporting ganja from Bargarh to Bilaspur. On searching the dickey of the vehicle, 102 packets wrapped with plastic tape containing ganja-like substance were recovered. He informed the SDOP, Saraipali through written intimation (exhibit P-21A), prepared the vehicle checking panchnama (exhibit P-6), served notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (exhibit P-7 and P-8), obtained the accused persons' consent for search (exhibit P-9), conducted the personal search of the police personnel and witnesses (exhibit P-10 and P-11), prepared the search panchnama (exhibit P-12) recording the recovery, and also served notices under Section 91 CrPC (exhibit P-30 and P-31). He further stated that the seized contraband was identified and seized under panchnamas (exhibit P-13 and P-14). Thereafter, all 102 packets were homogenized, two representative samples of 100 grams each were drawn, marked A-1 and A-2, sealed, and the relevant panchnamas (exhibit P-16 and P-17) were prepared. On weighment, the total quantity, including the sample packets, was found to be 102 kilograms (exhibit P-4), following which the contraband was seized vide exhibit P-18 and both accused persons were arrested. After returning to the police station, the seized property was deposited 8 in the malkhana (exhibit P-26), the proceedings were entered in the rojnamcha, and FIR No. 122/2019 (exhibit P-37) was registered. The sealed samples were subsequently sent to the State FSL, Raipur, where the FSL Report (exhibit P-38) confirmed the presence of ganja. He also stated that he obtained the ownership details of the vehicle, initiated proceedings under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act for inventory and certification of the seized contraband, and completed the investigation by recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses. ******* In his cross-examination, he admitted that the departure and return of the police party were duly recorded in the rojnamcha and that the police party had left the police station at about 2:30 p.m. and returned after completion of the proceedings. He stated that the place of occurrence was situated near Riyaz Dhaba on a busy National Highway and explained that independent witnesses were summoned through a police constable. Although he admitted that no separate document was available regarding the mode of travel of the constables deputed to inform the SDOP and summon the witnesses, he consistently maintained that the information regarding the recovery of contraband was promptly communicated to the SDOP through exhibit P-21A and that all proceedings were conducted at the spot. He further clarified that the vehicle checking panchnama (exhibit P-6) was prepared during the course of vehicle checking itself and denied the suggestion that the proceedings were fabricated or conducted at the police station. He further admitted that the accused persons were not physically taken before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer; however, he 9 categorically stated that prior to the search they were informed of their legal right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and, after being apprised of such right, they voluntarily consented to be searched by him, whereupon the requisite notices and consent panchnama were prepared. He also admitted certain omissions in the panchnamas and other documents regarding the description of the vehicle, the seal sample and certain procedural details. Nevertheless, he consistently asserted that 102 packets containing ganja were recovered from the dickey of the Hyundai Accent car, the contraband was duly seized, homogenized, sampled and sealed in accordance with the procedure followed during investigation, and the sealed samples were forwarded to the FSL, which confirmed the presence of ganja. Despite detailed cross-examination, no material contradiction or inconsistency could be elicited so as to discredit the core prosecution case regarding the recovery of the contraband from the possession of the accused persons, and he firmly denied the defence suggestion of false implication. 12. Section 43 of the NDPS Act provides the powers of seizure and arrest in public place which towards 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 10 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. 13. From the evidence available on record, it is evident that the accused persons were intercepted while travelling in a Hyundai Accent Car near Riyaz Dhaba on the National Highway during routine vehicle checking. The contraband, namely 102 kilograms of cannabis (ganja), was recovered from the dickey of the vehicle at a public place while it was 11 in transit. The prosecution case does not disclose that the police party had any prior secret information regarding the transportation of the contraband; rather, the recovery was effected during a chance interception in the course of routine vehicle checking. In such circumstances, the search and seizure are governed by the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act, which deals with seizure and arrest made in a public place, and not by Section 42 of the NDPS Act. In view of the Explanation appended to Section 43, the requirement of compliance with Section 42 has no application to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the contention of the appellants regarding non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act is devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected. 14. The contraband was recovered and seized while it was being transported in a Hyundai Accent Car on a public road. The recovery was thus effected from a vehicle in transit at a public place during routine vehicle checking. Such a search and seizure squarely falls within the ambit of Section 43(a) of the NDPS Act, which empowers the authorized officer to seize any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance found in any public place or in transit. Consequently, the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act govern the present case, and not Section 42. Therefore, the statutory requirement under Section 42 regarding recording the reasons for belief and reducing into writing any prior information received before conducting the search and seizure is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 15. In the matter of Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan vs. State of Gujarat and 12 Another dated 30.04.2024 reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 680 has held in para 18 as under: "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." 16. 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. 13 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 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." 17. 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 14 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 Constable Rajendra 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 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 15 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.” 18. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants 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 personal search of the accused persons, whereas in the present case the cannabis (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. 16 19. In the matter of Kallu Khan (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme 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." 20. 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 17 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." 21. 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: “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 18 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: “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 19 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, 20 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 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." 22. The next submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is the Sections 52 and 52A 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, 21 there is substantial non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 23. From the evidence of PW-12 Ashok Yadav, the investigating officer, it comes on record that he issued a request letter (exhibit P-42) to the SDOP Saraipali for inventory and verification of the seized cannabis (Ganja). On being served the notice upon the Nayab Tahsildar (PW-6) Indram Chandrawanshi conducted the inventory and prepared the physical verivication panchnama of the contraband ganja (exhibit P- 23), a verification panchnama under Section 52A(3) of the NDPS Act (exhibit P-24). The ganja was weighed and photographs were also taken, which is exhibit P-25. ******* In cross-examination, he admitted that the panchnama has not been prepared in his own handwriting, but he admitted his signature put on the panchnama, while conducting the inventory. Though he also admitted that in another panchnama attached with exhibit P-23, the seal or signature is not there, but the relevant part of panchnama is exhibit P-23, in which his signature is there. Nothing substantial could be extracted from his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence regarding the inventory proceedings. 24. PW-1, Meghnath Bariha is the patwari who prepared the spot map (exhibit P-1) and panchnama (exhibit P-2) and duly supported the prosecution case. PW-2, Narendra Kumar Miri is the witness to the weighment panchnama (exhibit P-4). Though he has not supported the prosecution case, but he admitted his signature on the weighment 22 panchnama (exhibit P-4) and also proved the vehicle checking by the police on the spot. PW-3, Reshamlal and PW-4 Jitendra Mehar are also the independent witnesses of search and seizure proceedings, however they have not supported the prosecution case, but they admitted their signature in the documents (exhibit P-1 to P-20). 25. PW-5, Ajay Kumar Bhoi is the Head Constable posted at the office of SDOP, Saraipali. He proved the information received from Singhoda police station through constable Ramakant Tripthi and issued acknowledgment (exhibit P-21 and P-22). Nothing could be extracted from his evidence that he has not received the information from police station Singhoda. 26. PW-7, Anand Kumar Thakur is the Head Constable posted at police station Singhoda. He stated in his evidence that on 02.10.2019, the SHO Ashok Kumar Yadav handed over the seized ganja in four bags, its sample packets A-1 and A-2, cash of Rs. 1800/-, two mobile phones and one Hyundai Car No. CG 04 HA 7921 to kept in safe custody and he issued acknowledged (exhibit P-26). He brought the malkhana register (exhibit P-27), in which there is entries relating to sending the samples to the FSL Raipur on 03.10.2019 and the attested copy is already annexed in the case. ******* In cross-examination he admitted that, the contents of the document (exhibit P-26) has been returned by the investigating officer. He admitted that in the document (exhibit P-26), the time has not been mentioned. The deposition of specimen seal has also not been 23 mentioned in the document (exhibit P-26 and P-27), however he admitted that he kept the articles in safe custody of malkhana in the same condition under which it was handed over to him by the investigating officer. 27. PW-8, Chitranjan Pradhan is the member of search party and he duly proved his part of the investigation, which they conducted on the spot and he being the procedural witness duly supported the prosecution case. 28. PW-9, Ramakant Tripathi is the constable posted at police station Singhoda. He stated in his evidence that on 02.10.2019, he has taken the written information to the office of SDOP Saraipali and obtained acknowledgment (exhibit P-21). He also taken the details of the proceedings information and obtained acknowledged (exhibit P-22). He too has remained firm in saying that, he has taken the relevant document to the office of SDOP Saraipali and admitted that he had gone there on his own motorcycle. 29. PW-10, Santosh Kumar Sanwra has taken the sample packets of ganja A-1 and A-2 to the State FSL Raipur along with the memo of Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund on 03.10.2019 and after depositing the samples at FSL Raipur, obtained acknowledged (exhibit P-24). 30. From the cross-examination of these witnesses, the defence could not be able to elicit any material regarding tempering of the samples of the seized ganja or to disbelieve his evidence that he has not taken the 24 sample packets to FSL, Raipur. 31. PW-11, Prasant Sagar is also a Head Constable and member of search party, who has called the independent witness during the search party and proved the same. He called the independent witnesses from the village of the witnesses, which were at the distance of about 1-2 kilometer from Riyaz Dhaba, where they were checking the vehicles. 32. PW-13, Shivdayal Baghel was the Station House Officer at police station Singhoda. In the offence of Crime No. 122/2019 under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act, he appeared before the Executive Magistrate, Saraipali for inventory proceeding under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The physical verification panchnama was prepared in his presence, which is exhibit P-23. The ganja was found to be 100.270 KG and photograph was also done. The relevant panchnama is exhibit P-44. The inventory prepared under Section 52A of NDPS Act is exhibit P-45 and verification of the Executive Magistrate is exhibit P-24 and the photographs are exhibit P-25. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet which is exhibit P-46. In cross-examination, he admitted that before the inventory proceeding under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, he inspected the relevant malkhana register. The physical verification panchnama (exhibit P-23) is prepared in his own handwriting. He admitted that the name of the person, who weighed the seized ganja and sample is not mentioned in the inventory proceeding. The photographer has not been made as a witness and the place where the photographs have been taken are not shown in the photographs. Though he further admitted that the samples drawn 25 during the inventory under Section 52A of the NDPS Act have not been sent for its chemical examination to FSL, but he denied that the inventory proceedings have been drawn arbitrarily. Although he admitted certain procedural discrepancies in making endorsement in the malkhana register after the inventory proceeding, however he denied that he prepared a false case against the appellants. 33. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly the testimony of the investigating officer duly corroborated by the seizure documents, the evidence regarding deposit of the seized articles in the malkhana, the safe transmission of the samples to the FSL, and the FSL report confirming that the seized substance was cannabis (ganja), this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were found in conscious possession of 102 kilograms of ganja, which they were transporting in the Hyundai Accent car intercepted during routine vehicle checking. The recovery of the contraband from the dickey of the vehicle, the quantity recovered, and the surrounding circumstances clearly establish the appellants' dominion and control over the contraband, thereby attracting the presumption of conscious possession under the NDPS Act. It is true that certain procedural deficiencies and omissions have surfaced in the course of the search and seizure proceedings; however, such lapses are of a technical nature and do not go to the root of the prosecution case so as to discredit the substantive evidence regarding recovery and possession of the contraband. The core prosecution version relating to the seizure of 102 kilograms of ganja 26 from the vehicle occupied by the appellants has remained intact despite lengthy cross-examination, and no material contradiction has been elicited to render the recovery doubtful. Consequently, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the substantive allegation regarding conscious possession and transportation of commercial quantity of ganja by the appellants stands duly proved by reliable and cogent evidence, notwithstanding the minor procedural irregularities noticed during the search and seizure process. 34. 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. 35. 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 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 27 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 28 111. 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 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 29 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 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. 30 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 31 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 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 32 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 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 33 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 34 empowered to specify certain narcotic drugs 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 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 35 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 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 36 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 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 37 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 38 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 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 39 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 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 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 40 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, 41 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 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, 42 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 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 43 of any such compliance is to be more careful while appreciating the evidence.” 36. In the present case the entire search and seizure proceedings have found genuine and the correct procedure have been drawn by the police persons. The seizure of cannabis (Ganja) and its weight and sampling were proved by the Executive Magistrate and nothing adverse could be found to disbelieve their evidences which further proves that the appellants were found in possession of such a huge quantity of cannabis (Ganja) in their vehicle. The appellants did not able to impute any palpable to make good their case that there has been non-compliance of any mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. 37. 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 whoever, in contravention of any provisions of the NDPS Act or any rule made therein possess cannabis (Ganja), shall be punished in accordance with the said provisions. Section 20(b) uses the "possesses". In the present case the appellants were found in possession of 102 KG of cannabis (Ganja) in their Hyundai Accent Car, 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 appellants have committed the offence in question and were transporting cannabis (Ganja) weighing 102 KG They could not given any suggestion as to how that huge quantity of cannabis (Ganja) came to be found in the vehicle in which they were 44 travelling. 38. The FSL report (exhibit P-38) further proves that the sample packets of cannabis (Ganja) which were drawn from the total quantity of cannabis (Ganja) were found to be contained with cannabis (Ganja) contents and further corroborates the allegation against the appellants. 39. 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. 40. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is hereby dismissed. The appellants are reported to be in jail since 02.10.2019. They shall serve the remaining period of jail sentence as has been awarded to them by the learned trial Court. 41. 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. 42. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to 45 the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved