Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Learned trial Court after giving opportunity of hearing to the prosecution and defence has passed the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellants in the manner mentioned hereinabove.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the conviction of the appellants is totally erroneous and bad in law. The conviction of the appellants is based only on the testimony of the Investigating Officer Rajaram Yadav (PW-6). One of the independent witnesses Santosh (PW-1) has turned hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case. Other independent witness of search and seizure has not been examined. Sub- Inspector Rajaram Yadav (PW-6) and other police witnesses were clearly interested to see that the appellants are convicted. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that there is no evidence present to show compliance of Section 55 of the Act, 1985. The evidence regarding sampling procedure is also doubtful. There is no exclusivity present to show that all steps were taken to prevent tampering with the samples. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Avinash Singh Rajput Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No.222 of 2014 delivered on 30-09-2019, in which the Division Bench has emphasized on compliance of Section 55 of the Act, 1985.

Therefore, now it is a settled law that compliance of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 is not mandatory in case of search of bag, baggage or container etc. Hence, the arguments raised by the appellants on this issue are not entertainable.

15. Another ground raised in the appeal regarding the sampling procedure and that there was possibility of the seized articles and samples being tampered before being sent to the FSL for examination needs consideration. Issue has also been raised regarding non-compliance of Section 55 of the Act, 1985. Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Rajaram Yadav (PW-6) has stated that the seized articles were sealed, samples prepared were also sealed and were handed over to Malkhana Moharrir, regarding which receipt Ex.-P/22 was obtained, this statement has not been specifically challenged in his cross-examination. Head Constable Diwakar Visi (PW-5) has stated that on 02-08- 2012 he was handed over the seized samples and other articles by Sub-Inspector Rajaram Yadav (PW-6) regarding which he had given him receipt Ex.-P/22. Seized articles were entered in the register (Ex.-P/23 and Ex.-P/24) on serial Nos. 33 and 34. In cross-examination his statement has unrebutted and he has denied all the adverse suggestions. Sub-Inspector Rajaram Yadav (PW-6) has stated that the samples were sent for FSL examination vide memo Ex.-P/28 which were received by FSL laboratory and receipt Ex.-P/29 was obtained for the same. The memo Ex.-P/28 for sending the samples to FSL is dated 03-08- 2012 which may be antedated as it appears from the statement of Constable Panchuram Baghel (PW-8) who had stated that he received the sealed samples, packets on 06-08-2012 and the same were deposited in the FSL laboratory on the same date regarding which receipt (Ex.-P/29) was obtained. In cross- examination he has stated that samples were kept in the police station from 02-08-2012 to 06-08-2012. He has admitted that on 03-08-2012 the samples were tendered before the FSL laboratory, but the same was not received, therefore, samples were returned to the Malkhana Moharrir and which were kept there until 06-08-2012 until the same were again sent to FSL. He has denied the suggestion of the samples being tampered. The statement of Head Constable Diwakar Visi (PW-5) is relevant on this point, who has stated in cross-examination that the samples were kept in Malkhana from 02-08-2012 to 03-08-2012 and he is ignorant as to where the samples were kept between 03-08-2012 to 06-08-2012. The Ex.-P/23A is copy of the Malkhana register showing deposit of the samples on 02-08-2012 and handing over of the samples on 03-08-2012 for their being sent to FSL. There is no entry of redeposit of the samples on 03-08-2012 and there being kept in Malkhana uptil 06-08-2012.

The facts present in this case are again needed to be examined in the light of this provision.

Sub-Inspector Rajaram Yadav (PW-6) has stated that on the date of search and seizure, i.e., 02-08-2012 the samples were prepared on the spot vide Ex.-P/10, Ex.-P/10 also mentions similarly. The independent witness Santosh (PW-1) is hostile and another witness of this procedure has not been examined. Inspector Sahdev Thakur (PW-7) has made statement that in the present case the sampling procedure was conducted in presence of the Executive Magistrate, Saraipali, there is no other statement regarding the date on which the sampling procedure was conducted which gives impression that the samples were prepared twice. The receipt of the FSL dated 06-08-2012 mentions receipts of the samples packets and other articles, but there is no mention regarding the seal present on the same. The FSL report, Ex.-P/30 mentions presence of seal in casual manner and there is no specification as to which authority had affixed the seal on the sample packets. It further appears that Sahdev Thakur (PW-7) was the senior officer posted in Police Station Saraipali and he was officer in-charge of the police station. According to the statement of Sub-Inspector Rajraram Yadav (PW-6) he did not hand over the seized article and the samples to the SHO Sahdev Thakur (PW-7) and instead, he handed over the same directly to the Malkhana Moharrir.