Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

31. It is further submitted that in this case the prosecution miserably failed to prove on record that the article recovered from the appellant was properly sealed, properly preserved and then sent to the CRCL for analysis in the same condition and none had tempered with it before it was examined by the comical Examiner. The first and foremost reason for holding so is that the seal with which recovered article and sample was sealed at the spot was not handed over to any public witness after the sealing process was over and instead it was handed over to an official witness PW-8 only. This was highly improper. There is no explanation as to why the seal was not handed over to any public witness especially, when he was available to ensure that the recovered article was not tempered with; during the period case property remained with the investigating officer or with the authorized officer under Section 53 of the Act. Regarding the seal, PW8 C.B.Singh, Superintendent, NCB deposed that this seal was handed over after alleged recovery of the articles, then handed back the seal to PW-12 N.S. Ahlawat, Assistant Director on the same day. If the seized article as well as seal remained with PW- 12 only from the time of seizure till the time sample ware sent to CRCL for analysis, there is no guarantee that the samples were not tempered with, during that period. Furthermore the prosecution was under an obligation to establish on record as to who had taken the sample of contraband from PW-12 and taken those to CRCL. The person who had taken the samples to CRCL was not examined before the court. In the testimony of PW-8 C.B. Singh, superintendent, NCB, it was also brought that the seized article could be taken out of the packet without disturbing the seals. It shows that the sealing was not proper and as such possibility of tempering with the sample was there. No malkhana register have been produced nor entries therein proved before the court to show as to at what time and on what date the article and samples allegedly recovered from the appellant were deposited in the malkhana and on what date and time and by whom the samples taken out for CRCL analysis.

34. In State of Rajasthan vs. Daulat Ram AIR 1980 SC 1314 the Apex Court while dealing with an offence under Opium Act held that it was the duty of the prosecution to prove that while in their custody the sample was not tempered with before reaching the public analyst.

35. This Court also in the case of Subhash Chand Mishra Vs. State 2002 (2) JCC 1379 relied upon several judgments of this court and came to the conclusion that the prosecution is under the obligation to prove the sample delivered to CRCL was in the same condition and there was no possibility of tempering with it. In the view of several doubts in the prosecution in regard to the connection of the appellant with the premises in question, recovered of Heroin from him, the possibility of tempering with the recovered article during the period it remained with the investigating agency, the non- production of public witness and non-joining of neighbours, this court is not in position to hold that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The act lays down stringent punishment for the offence committed thereunder and as such casts a heavy duty upon the courts to ensure that there remains no possibility of an innocent getting convicted. The officers concerned with the investigation of offences under the act must produce best and unimpeachable evidence to satisfy the courts that the accused is guilty because no chance can be taken with the liberty of a person. No doubt that the drug tracking is a serious matter but the investigations into such offences also have to be serious and not perfunctory.

66. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the samples and paper slip were tempered with. He denied to the suggestion that the documents were also fabricated in the present case to implicate the accused. He also denied to the suggestion that the seal affixed on Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/D-1 were also tempered with. To the suggestion that Ex.PW1/C was prepared by Yogender Kumar and it was merely signed by him and Shri D.K. Beri. He has further denied the suggestion that he has not analyzed the sample in the present case nor the analysis was supervised by Shri D.K. Beri.

143. If the seized article as well as the seal remained with PW2 only from the time of seizure till the time sample was sent to CRCL for analysis. Then, there is no guarantee that the samples were not tempered with during that period. Furthermore, the prosecution was under an obligation to establish on record as to who had taken the samples to CRCL.

144. The person who had taken the samples to CRCL was not examined before the Court. In the testimony of PW8 C.B.Singh, Superintendent, NCB stated that the seized articles could be taken out from the packets without disturbing the seals. It shows that the sealing process was not proper and as such possibility of tempering with the samples was there. Malkahana register has not been produced nor entries therein proved before the Court to show as to at what time and on what date, the articles and samples allegedly recovered from the appellant were deposited in the Malkhana on that date and time and by whom the samples were taken out for CRCL analysis.