Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

76. In the case at hand, the prosecution witnesses, particularly the members of the raiding party and the investigating officer, have consistently and cogently deposed regarding the manner in which the appellants were intercepted and the contraband cough syrup bottles were recovered from the bags and plastic sacks in their possession. Their testimonies remain unshaken on material particulars and nothing substantial has been elicited during cross- examination so as to discredit their version. The seizure of the contraband articles has also been duly supported by the contemporaneous documentary evidence, including the seizure memo and the sealing procedure adopted at the spot. The samples drawn from the seized bottles were subsequently sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the report received therefrom confirms that the seized articles contained Codeine in commercial quantity.

80. Having considered the entire evidence available on record in its proper perspective and after carefully scrutinizing the depositions of the prosecution witnesses along with the documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish that the appellants were found to be in joint as well as conscious possession of Codeine-containing cough syrup bottles. The record clearly demonstrates that a total of 175 bottles of cough syrup were recovered from the possession of the appellants, each bottle containing 100 ml of liquid, thereby making the total quantity 17,500 ml. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the members of the raiding party including PW-10 Sub-Inspector Bharat Lal Rathore, coupled with the seizure memo prepared at the spot, clearly establishes that the contraband bottles were recovered from the bags and the ladies purse carried by the appellants. The seized articles were duly sealed at the spot, samples were drawn in accordance with the procedure and the same were forwarded for examination through proper channel. The report of the Drug Inspector as well as the chemical analysis report of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory conclusively confirms that the seized bottles contained Codeine Phosphate and Chlorpheniramine Maleate, thereby establishing the presence of narcotic substance. When the quantity so recovered is taken into consideration, it clearly falls within the category of "commercial quantity" as defined under the NDPS Act. Thus, the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the seizure proceedings and the scientific reports placed on record collectively establish the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.

83. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 13 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, which governs the procedure relating to dispatch of samples for testing. Rule 13(1) specifically provides that the samples, after being certified by the Magistrate, shall be sent directly to any one of the jurisdictional laboratories of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, the Central Forensic Science Laboratory or the State Forensic Science Laboratory, as the case may be, for chemical analysis without any delay. The legislative intent behind the said provision is to ensure that the integrity of the seized samples is preserved and that the possibility of tampering is eliminated. The rule emphasises prompt dispatch of the samples to the designated laboratory so that the chemical analysis may be carried out expeditiously.

85. Significantly, during the course of trial, the defence did not specifically question PW-10 Sub-Inspector Bharat Lal Rathore or any other prosecution witness regarding alleged non-compliance of Rule 13 of the NDPS Rules, 2022 or regarding any delay in dispatching the samples to the forensic laboratory. No suggestion was put to the witnesses that the samples were not sent promptly or that the statutory procedure governing the dispatch of samples was violated. In criminal trials, cross-examination is the most effective method available to the defence to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses and to expose any irregularity in the investigation. When the defence has not chosen to confront the witnesses on such crucial aspects during cross-examination, it cannot subsequently be permitted to raise such a contention at the appellate stage merely by way of argument.