MANGILAL versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 12 July 2023

1. The appellant stood charged and convicted under Section 8(b)read with Section 15(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”). TheAdditional Sessions Judge, Special Court NDPS, Jaora, District Ratlam,Madhya Pradesh, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergorigorous imprisonment for 10 years. It was accordingly confirmed bythe High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Aggrieved, the present appeal is THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IN A NUTSHELL:

2. The Assistant Sub Inspector, H.S. Sengar, posted at PoliceStation Kalukheda received an information through a telephonic messageon 20.05.2010 that the appellant and co-accused Mathuralal against whomthe trial stood abated due to his death were in the process of supplyingnarcotic substance in the nature of poppy straw. Upon registering theinformation in the Daily Diary and without wasting time on the proceduralcompliance, the police force stopped a tractor in which bags containingthe contraband were seized. The accused were told about the searchupon due compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. A panchnamawas written at the place of occurrence. Samples were taken while theaccused were informed about the reason for the arrest. A FirstInformation Report was registered under Section 8(b) read with Section15(c), Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act in Crime No. 53/10. A finalreport was filed before the jurisdictional Court on 13.09.2010. Beforethe trial court 16 prosecution witnesses have been shown in the list ofwitnesses to have been examined by the prosecution while marking 48exhibits.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A3. Of these witnesses, the public witnesses, namely, P.W.2, P.W.3,P.W.4 and P.W.6 turned hostile. Among them P.W.2 & P.W.6 were panchwitnesses. These two witnesses signed majority of the exhibits. P.W.5though not declared hostile has deposed in clear term that the narcoticsubstance was in existence at the police station even before the allegedoccurrence. This part of the testimony has not been questioned by theBprosecution. Both the Courts placed reliance upon the FSL Report alongwith the police witnesses in rendering conviction. To be noted, two ofthe witnesses bearing testimony to the arrest memo have not beenexamined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it.

A

SCOPE OF SECTION 52A OF THE NDPS ACT, 1985:

C

Section 52A of the NDPS Act

A

SCOPE OF SECTION 52A OF THE NDPS ACT, 1985:

C

Section 52A of the NDPS Act

“52A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropicsubstances.— (1) The Central Government may, having regardto the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraintof proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, inrespect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlledsubstances or conveyances, by notification in the Official Gazette,specify such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlledsubstances or conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class ofpsychotropic substances, class of controlled substances orconveyances, which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure,be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as thatGovernment may, from time to time, determine after followingthe procedure hereinafter specified.

D

E

(2) Where any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlledsubstances or conveyances has been seized and forwarded to theofficer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officerempowered under Section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section(1) shall prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs, psychotropicsubstances, controlled substances or conveyances containing suchdetails relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode ofpacking, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars ofthe narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substancesor conveyances or the packing in which they are packed, countryof origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the narcotic F

G

H

drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances orconveyances in any proceedings under this Act and make anapplication, to any Magistrate for the purpose of—

(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b)taking, in the presence of such Magistrate, photographs ofsuch drugs, substances or conveyances and certifying suchphotographs as true; or

(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs orsubstances, in the presence of such Magistrate andcertifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.

(3) Where an application is made under sub-section (2), theMagistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian EvidenceAct, 1872 (1 of 1872) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treatthe inventory, the photographs of narcotic drugs, psychotropicsubstances, controlled substances or conveyances and any list ofsamples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by theMagistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence.”

4. Sub-section (1) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act facilitates theCentral Government a mode to be prescribed to dispose of the seizednarcotic substance. The idea is to create a clear mechanism for suchdisposal both for the purpose of dealing with the particular case and tosafeguard the contraband being used for any illegal purpose thereafter.

5. Sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act mandates acompetent officer to prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs withadequate particulars. This has to be followed through an appropriateapplication to the Magistrate concerned for the purpose of certifying thecorrectness of inventory, taking relevant photographs in his presenceand certifying them as true or taking drawal of samples in his presencewith due certification. Such an application can be filed for anyone of theaforesaid three purposes. The objective behind this provision is to havean element of supervision by the magistrate over the disposal of seizedcontraband. Such inventories, photographs and list of samples drawnwith certification by Magistrates would constitute as a primary evidence.Therefore, when there is non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AAct, where a certification of a magistrate is lacking any inventory,photograph or list of samples would not constitute primary evidence.

6. The obvious reason behind this provision is to inject fair play inthe process of investigation. Section 52A of the NDPS Act is a mandatoryrule of evidence which requires the physical presence of a MagistrateBfollowed by an order facilitating his approval either for certifying aninventory or for a photograph taken apart from list of samples drawn. Indue compliance of Section 52A(1) of the NDPS Act the Ministry ofFinance (Department of Revenue) issued a Notification No. G.S.R.339(E) dated 10.05.2007 which furnishes an exhaustive manner andmode of disposal of drugs ending with a certificate of destruction:C“4. Manner of disposal

1) Where any narcotic drug or psychotropic substances hasbeen seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of thenearest police station or to the officer empowered underDsection 53, of the Act, or if it is seized by such an officerhimself, he shall prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugsor psychotropic substances as per Annexure 1 to thisnotification and apply to any Magistrate under sub-section(2) of section 52A as per Annexure 2 to this notification.

E2)After the Magistrate allows the application under sub-section (3) of section 52A, the officer mentioned in clause(1) above shall preserve the certified inventory, photographsand samples drawn in the presence of the Magistrate asprimary evidence for the case and submit details of thedrug consignments to the Chairman of the Drug DisposalFCommittee for a decision by the committee on the disposal.The officer shall send a copy of the details along with thedrug consignments to the officer-in-charge of the godown.

XXX XXX XXX

4.2 Mode of disposal of drugs.G

(i) Opium, morphine, codeine and thebaine shall be disposedof by transferring to the Government Opium and AlkaloidWorks under the Chief Controller of Factories.

(ii) In case of drugs other than the drugs mentioned in clauseH(i), the Chief Controller of Factories shall be intimated by MANGILAL v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[M. M. SUNDRESH, J.]

the fastest means of communication available, details ofdrug consignments that are ready for disposal.

(iii) The Chief Controller of Factories shall indicate within 15days of the date of receipt of the communication, thequantities of drugs, if any, that are required by him to supplyas samples under Rule 67B.

(iv) Such quantities of drugs, if any, as required by the ChiefController of Factories under clause (iii) shall be transferredto him and the remaining quantities of drugs shall bedestroyed as per the procedure outlined in para 4.1.2.

(v) Destruction shall be by incineration in incinerators fittedwith appropriate air pollution control devices, which complywith emission standards. Such incineration may only be donein places where adequate facilities and securityarrangements exist. In order to ensure that such incinerationmay not be a health hazard or polluting, consent of the StatePollution Control Board or Pollution Control Committee, asthe case may be, should be obtained. Destruction shall becarried out at the presence of the Members of the DrugDisposal Committee.

XXX XXX XXX

4.4 Certificate of destruction.

A certificate of destruction (in triplicate) containing all the relevantdata like godown entry number, gross and net weight of the drugsseized, etc., shall be prepared and signed by the chairman andmembers of the Drug Disposal Committee as per format atAnnexure 3. The original copy shall be pasted in the godownregister after making necessary entries to this effect, the duplicateto be retained in the seizure case file and the triplicate copy willbe kept by the Drug Disposal Committee. Details of disposal ofdrugs shall be reported to the Narcotics Control Bureau in theMonthly Master Reports.”

7. To be noted, the aforesaid notification was in existence at thetime of the commission of the offence alleged in the case on hand, stoodrepealed with effect from 23.12.2022 vide Notification No. G.S.R.899(E).In any case a notification issued in derogation of the powers conferred A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aunder sub-section (1) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act can nevercontradict the main provision, particularly sub-Section (2). However, anyguideline issued by way of a notification in consonance with Section52A of the NDPS Act has to be followed mandatorily.

8. Before any proposed disposal/destruction mandate of SectionB52A of the NPDS Act requires to be duly complied with starting with anapplication to that effect. A Court should be satisfied with suchcompliance while deciding the case. The onus is entirely on theprosecution in a given case to satisfy the Court when such an issuearises for consideration. Production of seized material is a factor toestablish seizure followed by recovery. One has to remember that theCprovisions of the NDPS Act are both stringent and rigorous and thereforethe burden heavily lies on the prosecution. Non-production of a physicalevidence would lead to a negative inference within the meaning of Section114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as theEvidence Act). The procedure contemplated through the notification hasDan element of fair play such as the deposit of the seal, numbering thecontainers in seriatim wise and keeping them in lots preceded bycompliance of the procedure for drawing samples. The afore-statedprinciples of law are dealt with in extenso in Noor Aga v. State ofPunjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417:

E“89. Guidelines issued should not only be substantially compliedwith, but also in a case involving penal proceedings, vis-à-vis adepartmental proceeding, rigours of such guidelines may be insistedupon. Another important factor which must be borne in mind is asto whether such directions have been issued in terms of theprovisions of the statute or not. When directions are issued by anFauthority having the legal sanction granted therefor, it becomesobligatory on the part of the subordinate authorities to complytherewith.

90. Recently, this Court in State of Kerala v. Kurian Abraham(P) Ltd. [(2008) 3 SCC 582] , following the earlier decision of thisGCourt in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [(2004) 10SCC 1] held that statutory instructions are mandatory in nature.

91. The logical corollary of these discussions is that the guidelinessuch as those present in the Standing Order cannot be blatantlyflouted and substantial compliance therewith must be insisted upon H

for so that sanctity of physical evidence in such cases remainsintact. Clearly, there has been no substantial compliance with theseguidelines by the investigating authority which leads to drawing ofan adverse inference against them to the effect that had suchevidence been produced, the same would have gone against theprosecution.

92. Omission on the part of the prosecution to produce evidencein this behalf must be linked with a second important piece ofphysical evidence that the bulk quantity of heroin allegedlyrecovered indisputably has also not been produced in court. Therespondents contended that the same had been destroyed.However, on what authority it was done is not clear. Law requiresthat such an authority must flow from an order passed by theMagistrate. Such an order whereupon reliance has been placed isExhibit PJ; on a bare perusal whereof, it is apparent that at nopoint of time had any prayer been made for destruction of thesaid goods or disposal thereof otherwise. What was necessarywas a certificate envisaged under Section 110(1-B) of the 1962Act. An order was required to be passed under the aforementionedprovision providing for authentication, inventory, etc. The samedoes not contain within its mandate any direction as regardsdestruction.

XXX XXX XXX

XXX XXX XXX

95. The High Court proceeded on the basis that non-productionof physical evidence is not fatal to the prosecution case but thefact remains that a cumulative view with respect to thediscrepancies in physical evidence creates an overarchinginference which dents the credibility of the prosecution. Even forthe said purpose the retracted confession on the part of the accusedcould not have been taken recourse to.

96. Last but not the least, physical evidence relating to threesamples taken from the bulk amount of heroin was also notproduced. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that thebulk quantity was destroyed, the samples were essential to beproduced and proved as primary evidence for the purpose ofestablishing the fact of recovery of heroin as envisaged underSection 52-A of the Act.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

XXX XXX XXX

A

100. Physical evidence of a case of this nature being the propertyof the court should have been treated to be sacrosanct. Non-production thereof would warrant drawing of a negative inferencewithin the meaning of Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. Whilethere are such a large number of discrepancies, if a cumulativeeffect thereto is taken into consideration on the basis whereof thepermissive inference would be that serious doubts are createdwith respect to the prosecution’s endeavour to prove the fact ofpossession of contraband by the appellant. This aspect of thematter has been considered by this Court in Jitendra v. State ofM.P. [(2004) 10 SCC 562 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2028] in the followingterms: (SCC p. 565, para 6)

B

C

“6. … In the trial it was necessary for the prosecution toestablish by cogent evidence that the alleged quantities ofcharas and ganja were seized from the possession of theaccused. The best evidence would have been the seizedmaterials which ought to have been produced during the trialand marked as material objects. There is no explanation forthis failure to produce them. Mere oral evidence as to theirfeatures and production of panchnama does not discharge theheavy burden which lies on the prosecution, particularly wherethe offence is punishable with a stringent sentence as under D

E

the NDPS Act.””

9. On the issue of seizure in the presence of Magistrate, we wishto place reliance upon the decision of this Court in Union of India v.FMohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379:

“16. Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A requires that the Magistrateshall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that nosooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded tothe officer-in-charge of the police station or the officer empowered,the officer concerned is in law duty-bound to approach theMagistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant ofpermission to draw representative samples in his presence, whichsamples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list ofsamples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, theprocess of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and G

H

under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercisehas to be certified by him to be correct.

17. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizurewhich, more often than not, takes place in the absence of theMagistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This isso especially when according to Section 52-A(4) of the Act,samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance withsub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primaryevidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there isno provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at thetime of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the States claim tobe taking samples at the time of seizure.

18. Be that as it may, a conflict between the statutory provisiongoverning taking of samples and the Standing Order issued by theCentral Government is evident when the two are placed injuxtaposition. There is no gainsaid that such a conflict shall haveto be resolved in favour of the statute on first principles ofinterpretation but the continuance of the statutory notification inits present form is bound to create confusion in the minds of theauthorities concerned instead of helping them in the discharge oftheir duties. The Central Government would, therefore, do well,to re- examine the matter and take suitable steps in the abovedirection.”

FACTS AND DISCUSSION:

10. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for theappellant and the learned counsel appearing for the State. Incidentallywe perused the entire records.

11. The memorandum of informer’s information dated 20.05.2010exhibited under P-3 indicates signature of two witnesses, P.W.2 andP.W.6, both of them turned hostile. Though they admitted their signatureit was clearly deposed that they were not present at the scene ofoccurrence. In our considered view the Court below have wronglyconstrued the evidence, in fact these two witnesses were party to mostof the exhibits running upto 13. Search warrant under Exhibit P-4acknowledge the fact that procedure contemplated under the NDPSAct has not been followed. As noted, one of the witnesses to the seizurememo has not been examined while the other turned hostile. Both the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awitnesses to the arrest memo have not been examined. On the issue ofnon-production of narcotic substance and panch witnesses turning hostilewe wish to reiterate the decision of this Court in Jitendra v. State ofM.P., (2004) 10 SCC 562:

“5. The evidence to prove that charas and ganja were recoveredBfrom the possession of the accused consisted of the evidence ofthe police officers and the panch witnesses. The panch witnessesturned hostile. Thus, we find that apart from the testimony ofRajendra Pathak (PW 7), Angad Singh (PW 8) and Sub-InspectorD.J. Rai (PW 6), there is no independent witness as to the recoveryof the drugs from the possession of the accused. The charas andCganja alleged to have been seized from the possession of theaccused were not even produced before the trial court, so as toconnect them with the samples sent to the Forensic ScienceLaboratory. There is no material produced in the trial, apart fromthe interested testimony of the police officers, to show that theDcharas and ganja were seized from the possession of the accusedor that the samples sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory weretaken from the drugs seized from the possession of the accused.Although the High Court noticed the fact that the charas andganja alleged to have been seized from the custody of the accusedhad neither been produced in the court, nor marked as articles,Ewhich ought to have been done, the High Court brushed aside thecontention by observing that it would not vitiate the conviction asit had been proved that the samples were sent to the ChemicalExaminer in a properly sealed condition and those were found tobe charas and ganja. The High Court observed, “non-productionFof these commodities before the court is not fatal to theprosecution. The defence also did not insist during the trial thatthese commodities should be produced”. The High Court reliedon Section 465 CrPC to hold that non-production of the materialobject was a mere procedural irregularity and did not causeprejudice to the accused.

G

6. In our view, the view taken by the High Court isunsustainable. In the trial it was necessary for theprosecution to establish by cogent evidence that the allegedquantities of charas and ganja were seized from thepossession of the accused. The best evidence would haveH

been the seized materials which ought to have beenproduced during the trial and marked as material objects.There isno explanation for this failure to produce them.Mere oral evidence as to their features and production ofpanchnama does not discharge the heavy burden which lieson the prosecution, particularly where the offence ispunishable with a stringent sentence as under the NDPSAct. In this case, we notice that panchas have turned hostileso the panchnama is nothing but a document written by thepolice officer concerned. The suggestion made by the defencein the cross- examination is worthy of notice. It was suggested tothe prosecution witnesses that the landlady of the house in collusionwith the police had lodged a false case only for evicting the accusedfrom the house in which they were living. Finally, we notice thatthe investigating officer was also not examined. Against thisbackground, to say that, despite the panch witnesses having turnedhostile, the non-examination of the investigating officer and non-production of the seized drugs, the conviction under the NDPSAct can still be sustained, is far-fetched.”

(emphasis supplied)

12. We further find that memorandum under Section 27 of theAct, as witnessed by the two witnesses, P.W.3 and P.W.4 would be ofno value in evidence as there is no discovery of new fact involved. Bethat as it may, these witnesses also turned hostile. The record wouldalso indicate that an order was passed by the trial Judge permitting theprosecution to keep the seized materials within the police station, to beproduced at a later point of time. This itself is a sufficient indication thatthe mandate of Section 52A has not been followed. There is no explanationeither for non-production of the seized materials or the manner in whichthey are disposed of. No order passed by the Magistrate allowing theapplication, if any, filed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. P.W.10,Executive Magistrate has deposed to the fact that he did not pass anyorder for the disposal of the narcotics substance allegedly seized. Similarly,P.W.12 who is In-charge of Malkhana also did not remember any suchorder having been passed. On the issue of disposing narcotic substancein derogation of the compliance contained in Section 52A of the NDPSAct, this Court in Union of India v. Jarooparam, (2018) 4 SCC 334has held as follows:

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

“8. What transpires from the abovequoted paragraph is that aftertaking out two samples of 30 gm each, the Executive Magistratereturned the entire remaining seized property to the investigatingofficer PW 6. To further ascertain the same, we have alsocarefully perused the exact content of the proceedings dated 14-10-2004 (Annexure P-5) recorded by the Executive Magistrate,Singoli Tappa. The proceedings recorded as far as the respondentherein is concerned, read thus:

A

B

Proceedings

14-10-2004: Case submitted. Shri Harvinder Singh, Inspector(Investigating Officer), Narcotics Bureau, Singoli has submittedthree sealed packets of seized stuff in Crime No. 1 of 2004 underSections 8/18 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. These packetswere marked A, B and C and the details are given as under:

C

1-A: On the packet marked “A” it was indicated that packetcontains 7.200 kg opium seized from Jaroopram, s/o Ganga RamBishnoi. On opening the packet, transparent polythene bag wasfound, in which again two polythene packets were found. Onepolythene indicated 4.000 kg and the second one 3.200 kg opium,respectively. A composite sample of 30-30 gm each have beentaken from the two packets and kept in a small plastic polytheneand marked A-3 and A-4 and sealed. The remaining seized stuffand samples sealed as usual are handed over to the presentingofficer Shri Harvinder Singh, Inspector.

D

E

9. From the above proceedings, it is crystal clear that theremaining seized stuff was not disposed of by the ExecutiveFMagistrate. The contraband stuff as also the samples sealedas usual were handed over physically to the InvestigatingOfficer Harvinder Singh (PW 6). Also the trial court in itsjudgment specifically passed instructions to preserve theseized property and record of the case in safe custody, asGthe co-accused Bhanwarlal was absconding. The trial courtmore specifically instructed to put a note with red ink onthe front page of the record for its safe custody. In such asituation, it assumes importance that there was nothing onrecord to show as to what happened to the remaining bulkquantity of contraband. The absence of proper explanation H

from the prosecution significantly undermines its case andreduces the evidentiary value of the statements made bythe witnesses.

10. Omission on the part of the prosecution to produce thebulk quantity ofseized opium would create a doubt in themind of the Court on the genuineness of the samples drawnand marked as A, B, C, D, E, F from the allegedly seizedcontraband. However, the simple argument that the samehad been destroyed, cannot be accepted as it is not clearthat on what authority it was done. Law requires that suchan authority must flow from an order passed by theMagistrate. On a bare perusal of the record, it is apparentthat at no point oftime any prayer had been made by theprosecution for destruction of the said opium or disposalthereof otherwise. The only course of action theprosecution should have resorted to is for its disposal is toobtain an order from the competent court of Magistrate as -envisaged under Section 52A of the Act. It is explicitlymade under the Act that as and when such an application ismade, the Magistrate may, as soon as may be, allow theapplication (see also Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16SCC 417 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 748).

11. There is no denial of the fact that the prosecution has not filed any such application for disposal/destruction of theallegedly seized bulk quantity of contraband material norwas any such order passed by the Magistrate. Even nonotice has been given to the accused before such allegeddestruction/disposal. It is also pertinent here to mentionthat the trial court appears to have believed the prosecutionstory in a haste and awarded conviction to the respondentwithout warranting the production of bulk quantity ofcontraband. But, the High Court committed no error indealing with this aspect of the case and disbelieving theprosecution story by arriving at the conclusion that at thetrial, the bulk quantities of contraband were not exhibitedto the witnesses at the time of adducing evidence.

12. Turning to the other discrepancies in the prosecution case,PWs 1 and 2 the independent witnesses portrayed by the AB

D

E

F

G

H

Aprosecution have turned hostile and did not support its case. It ismanifest from the record that they had simply put their signatureson the papers at the whims of the investigating agency. Anotheraspect that goes in favour of the accused is that, the version ofprosecution that the respondent voluntarily made the confessionalstatement cannot be believed in the light of admission by NarcoticsBOfficer (PW 5), a key prosecution witness, that the statement ofthe respondent-accused under Section 67 of the Act was recordedwhile he was in his custody and the time was not mentioned onthe statements. This fact further gets corroborated with thestatement of PW 6 also that the statement of the accused wasCrecorded after arrest and while in custody. Thus, it cannot be saidthat the statement of the accused confessing the crime wasvoluntarily made under the provisions of the Act.”

(emphasis supplied)

13. There is a serious doubt with respect to the seizure. P.W.5Dwho was a police officer himself had deposed on the existence of thevery same seized materials even before the occurrence. This testimonywhich destroys the very basis of the prosecution case has not even beenchallenged.

14. Both the Courts have mechanically placed reliance on theEFSL Report while taking the statement of P.W.11 as the gospel truth.The views expressed by him can at best be taken as opinion at least oncertain aspects. There are too many material irregularities which createa serious doubt on the very case of the prosecution. On a proper analysiswe have no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgments are liableFto be set aside and the appellant is to be acquitted by rendering thebenefit of doubt.

15. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentencerendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court NDPS, Jaora,District Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh in Special Sessions No. 19/2010 asGconfirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal AppealNo. 6163 of 2017 stands set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all thecharges. Bond, if any, shall stand discharged.

H

Divya Pandey(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.