Possession and transportation of narcotic

Accused was apprehended by the police on spy information and was found to be transporting huge quantity of narcotic i.e. 8 kilograms of charas through a car, which was under his control at the time of arrest

Although only police officials and no private persons were associated as witnesses to the alleged recovery, but it was no ground to grant bail unless some mala fides appeared on part of police

No enmity or ill-will had been brought on record by accused against the police to show their false implication in the case

Although samples were sent to the chemical expert with some delay, but Rr. 4 & 5 of Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 placed no bar on the investigating officer to send the samples beyond 72 hours of seizure of the narcotic substance

Accused was refused bail accordingly.

Accused persons were allegedly transporting packets containing 180 kilograms of charas, which were hidden in the secret cavities of a truck

Only two packets weighing 2 kilograms in total were sealed and sent to Chemical Examiner

Trial Court convicted accused persons under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100,000 each

Validity

Police allegedly recovered 90 packets of charas which weighed 180 kilograms in total

Only two packets weighing one kilogram each were sealed separately and sent to Chemical Examiner

Report of Chemical Examiner also showed that Laboratory received only two sealed parcels containing two kilograms charas, as such the accused persons would be considered to have been found in possession/transportation of two kilograms charas as no chemical examiner's report was available in respect of the rest of the recovered substance

Appeal was allowed partly, conviction of accused persons was maintained, but their sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to six years imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100,000 each.

Separate samples from each packet/piece were not collected for purposes of chemical analysis, therefore sample sent could not be said to be a "representative sample" and it also did not come within definition of "sufficient quantity"

Only that quantity of charas regarding which conclusive evidence by way of chemical report was available had to be presumed as recovered from the accused

Statement of one of the prosecution witnesses (customs official) was also not clear with regard to quantity of charas recovered

Vehicle was also not owned by the accused

Death sentence imposed by Trial Court being too harsh, in circumstances was converted into imprisonment already undergone by accused

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.