Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the conviction of the appellants is based only on the testimony of the Investigating Officer, Sewakram Dhruv (PW-4). The independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even the witness of weighing machine Bharat Lal Bariha (PW-5) has not supported the case of the prosecution. They would further submit that the sampling procedure was not done in accordance with the Standing Order No. 01/ 1988 dated 15.3.1988 according to which, the Investigating Officer ought to have serially numbered the packets by putting serial number. A seal should have been affixed over samples and seized contraband. Place and time of withdrawal of sample should have been made in the panchanama. They would also submit that according to clause 1.6 of the Standing Order, the Investigating Officer ought to have taken 24 gm of ganja from each packet as sample. They would further submit that the standing orders are mandatory in nature. They would also submit that the procedure adopted by the prosecution to send the contraband for FSL is doubtful, as the samples were taken for FSL on 31.10.2011, the same were given in the FSL laboratory on 2.11.2011 vide Ex.P/33. Hence, learned counsel for the appellants pray for acquittal of the appellants in both the cases.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection.

9. The prosecution has examined Vishnu Barik (PW-1), Head-

Constable who recorded the secret information on 30.10.2011 at 6:40 am vide Ex.P/1 and the information was sent to SDO (Police) Saraipali vide Ex.P/2. In the cross-examination, the defence could not bring any discrepancy in his evidence. Nilamber Singh Netam (PW-2), Head-Constable-cum-Moharir has stated that the entry in Roj namcha Sanha was done regarding Crime No.409 of 2011 and after seizure the contraband was handed over to him to keep it in a safe custody of Malkhana. He has further stated that the seized article was properly sealed and the seized ganja was kept in 5 gunny bags, total weighing 31.600 gm. The 6 sample packets weighing 25 gm and 3 packets of ash each packet contains of 10 gm were handed over to him which were properly sealed. The above fact is recorded in the register at Sr. No. 99, dated 30.10.2011. In cross-examination, this witness remained firm. Nand Kumar Das (PW-3), Assistant Sub-Inspector, who was posted as Reader of Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) Saraipali, received secret information (Ex.P/1) and sent memo (Ex.P/2) information regarding completion of seizure proceeding (Ex.P/5). Sewakram Dhruv (PW-4) has conducted investigation and he has exhibited all the relevant documents. In cross-examination, he has denied the suggestions given by the defence. From his evidence, it is apparent that he has complied the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act and in cross-examination, the defence has not brought contravention of any of the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act. The defence has not put any question regarding violation of the Standing Order No.1 of 1988 dated 15.3.1988. No question has been put regarding non- compliance of sampling procedure. Further, from evidence of this witness, it is quite vivid that total 21 packets were seized from the appellants and from all packets samples were taken and 3 packets of 10-10 gm were prepared. Thereafter, the article was burnt and by its smell and taste it was found as ganja. From seized packets, samples of 25-25 gm, total 6 packets were taken separately and this process has been described by this witness in his examination- in-chief. This witness has also stated that the seized contraband and the samples were properly sealed and the articles were handed over in the safe custody. In cross-examination paragraph 10 this witness has stated that there was no weight of 25 gm but weight of 50 gm was available, therefore, 50 gm of ganja was weighed and it was divided in two parts to make sample packets of 25 gms. The defence has not asked any question regarding illegal seizure or illegal sampling method. Bharat Lal Bariha (PW-5) has stated in his evidence that his weighing scale was taken by the police vide Ex.P/20 and ganja was weighed. In cross-examination, he has stated that the weighing scale was in his hands whereas the articles were being weighed by the police. Thus, this witness has supported the case of the prosecution. Anil Kumar Manjhi (PW-6), Constable has put his signature over Ex.P/1 the secret information and its receipt. Bablu Behra (PW-7), who is witness of Ex.P/9, P/10, P/12, P/13, P/14, P/16, P/17, P/18, P/19, P/20, P/21, P/22, P/23, P/24, P/28, P/29, P/30 & Article-A/1 & 2, has admitted his signatures upon these documents. He has stated that a vehicle was intercepted by the police at Banjari Barrier. In paragraph 2, he has stated that he does not recognize the appellants. He has denied that he is not aware of the seizure of ganja and vehicle used for its transportation but he has stated that in seized bags there was ganja. He has further stated that he does not remember the quantity of ganja. He has also stated that all the signatures on the exhibited documents were put by him at Banjari Barrier. He was declared hostile and when suggestion was given by the counsel for prosecution he has admitted that when he reached at the place of incident the vehicle was stopped and the ganja was already seized and all the accused persons were near the car. He has admitted all the proceedings conducted by police. In cross-examination, he has admitted the photographs i.e. Article A/1 & 2 as they were taken by a camera man. Likewise, Sarthi Sao (PW-8) has admitted his signature but has not supported the case of the prosecution. Satish Kumar Khairwar (PW-9), Constable has stated that on 2.11.2011 vide Ex.P/33, he has handed over the sealed packets to the FSL Laboratory. In cross-examination, no relevant question has been put to this witness.

12

14. The next ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is with regard to non-compliance of the sampling procedure under the Standing Order No.1 of 1988, particularly clause 1.6, which says as under:-

"1.6 Quantity of different drugs required in the sample
- The quantity to be drawn in each sample for chemical test should be 5 grams in respect of all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances except in the cases of Opium, Ganja and Charas/Hashish where a quantity of 24 grams in each case is required for chemical test. The same quantities should be taken for the duplicate sample also. The seized drugs in the packages/containers should be well mixed to make it homogeneous and representative before the sample in duplicate is drawn."

They have placed reliance on the matter of Amin Fidel Chris vs. Narcotics Control Bureau7 and Union of India vs. Bal Mukund and others (supra) and would submit that the Standing Orders are mandatory in nature and non-compliance of these Standing Orders would be fatal for prosecution. Sewakram Dhruv (PW-4), the Investigating Officer has stated that total 21 packets were seized and samples were taken from all packets. Three packets of 10-10 gms. were prepared and the article was burnt, whereas, six packets of 25-25 gms. were taken separately for chemical examination. The samples packets were sealed properly and kept in safe custody. From the language of the Standing Order 1.6 it appears that in case of Ganja a quantity of 24 gms. should be taken for chemical test in each case. In the present case the Investigating Officer has taken 7 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2080 sample from all packets, mixed it and prepared six sample packets of 25 gms. and thus there is compliance of this Standing Order. In cross-examination the defence has not put any suggestion or question to the Investigating Officer regarding non-compliance of the Standing Order 1.6 which deals with the sampling procedure. The learned counsel for the appellants are raising this issue first time before this Court and moreover, from the evidence it appears that the Investigating Officer has complied the requirement of the Standing Order 1.6. Therefore, the decision cited by learned counsel for the appellants are of no help.