Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Investigation was handed over to the Sub Inspector Dayashanker Mishra, who in turn got the sample chemically examined and received a report. He took the statements of witnesses of recovery and prepared the site plan and on finding sufficient evidence, he filed charge sheet against the accused in the Court.

6. The accused-appellant was charged for offence u/s 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act; to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

7. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined Udairaj Singh, Inspector as P.W.-1, S.I. Ram Gopal Yadav as P.W.-2, Dayashanker Mishra, I.O. as P.W.-3 and Constable Radheshyam as P.W.-4.

20. Further, it is also pertinent to note at this juncture that not only the manner in which the appellant was searched, is doubtful, the prosecution has also not prosecuted the case seriously, knowing that severe punishment has been provided in N.D.P.S. Act. It produced only four witnesses i.e Udairaj Singh, Inspector as P.W.-1, S.I. Ram Gopal Yadav as P.W.-2, Dayashanker Mishra, I.O. as P.W.-3 and Constable Radheshyam as P.W.-4 and withheld other witness without any justification.

21. In the light of above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the mandatory compliance of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act. In absence of compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 N.D.P.S Act, the prosecution case, based on testimony of police personnel i.e. Udairaj Singh, Inspector as P.W.-1, S.I. Ram Gopal Yadav as P.W.-2, Dayashanker Mishra, I.O. as P.W.-3 and Constable Radheshyam as P.W.-4, whose statements are not wholly reliable, cannot be held as proved beyond reasonable doubt in view of the other illegalities and material irregularity committed by the witnesses as discussed above.