CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) IN TTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAARH CRA-S-24889-SB-2004 Reserved onn: 21.05.2026 Pronouncedd on: 27.07.2026 Uploaded oon: 28.07.2026 Whether onlyy operative part of the judgment is Pronounced : No Whether full jjudgment is pronounced: Yes Amar Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Haryyana ...Respondent CORAM: HHON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Ms. Uru Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryyana, for the Respondent State. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. 1. The present appeal has been diirected against the judgment off conviction daated 08.07.2004 and order of senntence dated 09.07.2004 , passedd by the learneed Special Judge, Panipat wherebby the appellant was held guiltyy and convicteed under Section 20 of the Naarcotic Drugs and Psychotropicc Substances AAct, 1985 (for short 'NDPS AAct’) and sentenced to undergoo rigorous impprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 Lac and inn default of paayment of fine, to further underrgo rigorous imprisonment for aa period of twoo years and six months. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -1- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M)

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, thhe case of the prosecution is that,, on 07.04.19998 a police party headed by ASSI Sant Raj (PW-7) was presentt outside bus sstand Panipat in connection withh patrolling. They saw a personn coming fromm bus stand Panipat carrying a bllue bag on his left shoulder. Onn seeing the p olice party he turned back andd started walking at a fast pacee which aroussed suspicion amongst the poolice officials. When he wass apprehended the police party inquired about his identity as he was suspectedd of carrying some contraband in the bag. So a notice Exhibit PE underr Section 50 o f NDPS Act was given to him wwith an option to be searched inn presence of aa Magistrate or a Gazetted Officcer. Vide Ex.PE/1 he opted to bee searched beffore a Gazetted Officer and acc ordingly the bag carried by thee appellant waas searched in the presence of PPW9 Rattan Singh, DSP and 1.55 kgs of Charaas was recovered from him. Aftter separating 100 grams out off the recoveredd contraband as sample, the resi due along with the sample weree sealed with seal 'RS' and was taken into possession by the police videe recovery meemo EX.PF. Thereafter the sammple along with the remainingg contraband aand the accused were producedd before the SHO, who counterr sealed the saample and contraband with his sseal 'SS'. On the same day ASII Sant Raj (PWW7) deposited this sample and tthe remaining contraband in thee Malkhana with HC Naresh Kumar (PW-4) who thereafter handed over thee same along wwith the sample seal on 15.04.19998 to HC Raghbir Singh (PW--

5) for depossiting the same in the Office oof Director FSL Madhuban (onn 15.04.1998) who deposited it with the FSL on the same day. On receipt off the FSL repoort Ex.PH and the completion oof the investigation, challan wass presented agaainst the appellant. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -2- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) 3. Vide order dated 08.05.2001, thhe appellant was charge sheetedd for the commmission of offence punishable unnder Section 20 of the NDPS Actt to which he ppleaded not guilty and claimed trrial. 4. In order to prove its case thee prosecution examined Kartarr Singh, DSP ((Retired) as PW1, Prithviraj ASSI as PW2, H.C. Rajbir Singh ass PW3, H.C. NNaresh Kumar as PW4, H.C. Raaghbir Singh as PW5, Sumandarr Singh DSP aas PW6, Sant Raj ASI (Retired) as PW7, H.C.Dhan Raj as PW88 and Rattan SSingh DSP as PW9 besides tenddering in evidence report of FSLL as Ex.PH andd closed the prosecution evidencce. 5. On the conclusion of thee prosecution evidence, thee incriminatingg circumstances appearing in thee prosecution evidence were putt to the accused during the course of their eexamination under Section 3133 Cr.P.C. The appellant-accused denied thee prosecution allegations andd pleaded falsee implication. No defence evidennce was led by the appellant, inn spite of numbber of opportunities.

6. The learned trial Court, after aappreciating and evaluating thee evidence avaailable on record, held the appeellant guilty and convicted himm under Sectionn 20 of NDPS Act. 7. Learned counsel appearing forr the appellant has assailed thee judgment of conviction by contending that thhe learned trial Court has failedd to appreciatee the evidence on record in iits correct perspective and hass ignored mateerial infirmities which go to the root of the prosecution case. Itt has been arrgued that the conviction has been recorded despite seriouss contradictionns in the testimonies of the prossecution witnesses, unexplainedd delay in sennding the sample to the Forennsic Science Laboratory, non-- PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -3- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) association oof independent witnesses thouggh readily available, and non--compliance wwith the mandatory safeguards embodied under Section 50 off the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substannces Act, 1985.

8. Learned counsel has argued that the prosecution evidencee suffers fromm material inconsistencies regarrding the manner in which thee recovered coontraband was sealed and preserrved. It is submitted that, as perr the ruqa preppared by the Investigating Officeer, the sample parcel was kept inn a tin containner whereas the remaining conntraband was kept in a plasticc container. HHowever, while deposing beforre the Court, the Investigatingg Officer statedd that both the parcels were keppt in tin containers. On the otherr hand, PW-8 Dhan Raj deposed that the sample was kept in a plasticc container whhile the remaining contraband wwas kept in a tin box. Accordingg to learned coounsel, these contradictions relatte to the identity and sanctity off the case propperty and cannot be brushed asidde as minor discrepancies. It hass further been contended that there are materrial contradictions regarding thee sealing of thhe parcels. PW-7 ASI Sant Raaj deposed that two seals weree affixed on thhe sample parcel, whereas PW-88 Dhan Raj stated that only onee seal had beenn affixed. Similarly, PW-7 cate gorically stated that the Deputyy Superintendeent of Police had not affixed hhis seal on the parcels, whereass PW-9 DSP RRattan Singh deposed that the paarcels had also been sealed withh his seal bearring impression "RS". It has beeen argued that these conflictingg versions strikke at the credibility of the prossecution case and cast a seriouss doubt upon the integrity of the sample allegedly recovered from thee appellant.

PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -4- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) 8.1. Learned counsel has also poiinted out that the prosecutionn witnesses haave contradicted each other withh regard to the weights used forr weighing thee alleged contraband. Accordinng to him, these inconsistenciess assume sign ificance in a prosecution undeer the NDPS Act, where strictt adherence too the prescribed procedure is in dispensable and the quantity off the recoveredd substance has a direct bearing on the nature of the offence andd the punishmeent prescribed. 8.2. Another submission advanced by learned counsel is that thee FIR in the prresent case was registered on thee basis of the ruqa sent by PW-77 ASI Sant Raaj, who thereafter continued to iinvestigate the case. It has beenn argued that tthe Investigating Officer himselff being the complainant renderss the investigaation unfair and contrary to the settled principles. According too learned counnsel, the investigation conducteed by the complainant himselff stands vitiateed and the conviction based thereeon cannot be sustained.

8.3. Learned counsel has next conteended that the alleged recoveryy was effectedd from the bus stand at Panipatt, which is admittedly a publicc place havingg high foot fall of general publi c and officials of the Transportt Department. Despite the availability of seeveral independent persons, noo effort was mmade by the investigating agenccy to associate any independentt witness withh the search and recovery procceedings. It is argued that thee omission to jjoin independent witnesses, witthout any plausible explanation,, assumes conssiderable significance in the factts of the present case and createss a serious douubt about the fairness and transpparency of the alleged recovery.. According too learned counsel, the entire reccovery has been falsely plantedd PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -5- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) upon the apppellant after preparing the neceessary documents at the policee station. 8.4. It has further been argued that tthere is an unexplained delay off eight days inn sending the sample parcel to thhe Forensic Science Laboratory.. Learned couunsel submits that the prosecuution has failed to furnish anyy satisfactory explanation for such delay. Inn the absence of any evidencee regarding thee safe custody of the sample duuring the intervening period, thee possibility off tampering with the sample cannnot be ruled out.

8.5. Lastly, learned counsel has vehhemently argued that there hass been comple te non-compliance with the manndatory provisions of Section 500 of the NDPS Act. Referring to memo Exx. PE, it is submitted that thee appellant wa s merely informed that he could be searched in the presence of aa Gazetted Offficer or a Magistrate. However, he was never informed that hee possessed a llegal right to demand that the s earch be conducted before suchh an officer. According to learned counsel, the communication of this valuablee legal right iss mandatory and not a mere forrmality. Since the appellant wass not apprised of his statutory right in the maanner contemplated by law, thee entire searchh and recovery stand vitiated. IIt is, therefore, prayed that thee conviction annd sentence recorded by the learrned trial Court be set aside andd the appellantt be acquitted of the charges. 9. Per contra, learned State counssel has argued that the materiall prosecution witnesses have deposed cons istently regarding recovery off charas from the possession of appellant-acccused, without any licence orr permit. Learnned State counsel further arguedd that the alleged contradictionss in the statemments of the prosecution witnessees are minor in nature and do nott PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -6- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M)

affect the casse of the prosecution at all. Learnned State counsel further arguedd that though aappellant was apprehended fromm a public place but the searchh and recoveryy of contraband was effected in the office of the DSP. Learnedd State counseel further argued that investiggating officer tried to join thee witnesses froom the public but no one came fforward to join the police party.. Learned Statte counsel further argued that mmerely on account of non joiningg of independdent witness, prosecution cas e cannot be doubted, whichh otherwise staands proved. Learned State counnsel further argued that the delayy of 8 days in sending the sample to the FSL iis not fatal as it has been provedd by the proseccution that the sample remained intact till it reached the office off FSL and wass not tampered with at any stage.. The same is fortified by Ex.PHH i.e. the FSL rreport. Lastly, learned State coounsel submitted that Section 500 of the NDPSS Act is not applicable in the prresent case as the recovery wass effected fromm the bag which the accused waas carrying on his left shoulder.. Thus, learnedd State counsel prayed that the judgment of conviction passedd by the Learneed Special Judge be upheld. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gonee through the rrecord with their able assistance.

11. So far as discrepancies pointedd out by the learned counsel forr the appellantt in the statements of PW’s Santt Raj, Dhan Raj and DSP Rattann Singh are conncerned, suffice it to say that samme are minor discrepancies. Thee material fact is that the appellant was appre hended from bus stand, Panipatt on the basis oof suspicion. The search of his bbag which led to recovery of 1.55 kg charas froom his conscious possession, wiithout any licence or permit wass conducted inn the office of DSP Rattan Singh in his presence. Thee PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -7- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) discrepanciess about the weights used for weeighing the contraband, numberr of seals affixed on the parcels, time of prroduction of accused and casee property beffore SHO and other discrepanccies pointed out by the learnedd counsel for tthe appellant are not material annd the same do not go to root off the prosecutiion case. Such type of discrepanncies do occur in the statementss of the proseccution witnesses more so when thhe witnesses are being examinedd after more tthan five years from the date of recovery. The testimony off prosecution witnesses in the present case hhas remained consistent on alll material partiiculars.

12. So far as the contention of the l earned counsel for the appellantt regarding noon joining of independent witneess is concerned, it is observedd that people aare often hesitant in joining pollice investigation for variety off reasons. PWW-7 ASI Sant Raj has clearlyy stated that he tried to joinn independent witness but all expressed theiir helplessness. It is now welll settled that eevidence of a witness cannot be rejected merely because hee happens to bbe an official witness. In the ppresent case, nothing could bee elucidated frrom the cross examinations of PPW’s Sant Raj, Dhan Raj, DSPP Rattan Singhh and DSP Samundar Singh, sso as to raise any dispute withh regard to rec overy of contraband from the poossession of the appellant or thatt their statemeents are partisan in nature or thatt they had any motive to plant aa false recoverry upon the appellant. In these circumstances, this Court is off considered oopinion, that testimonies of officcial witnesses inspire confidencee and the samme are held to be reliable. In KKaramjit Singh v. State (Delhii PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -8- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) Administratiion), AIR 2003 SC 1311, the HHon’ble Supreme Court has heldd as under:

“The testimony of police persoonnel should be treated in thee same manner as testimony of anny other witness and there is noo pprinciple of law that without corroboration by independentt witnesses their testimony caannot be relied upon. Thee ppresumption that a person actts honestly applies as much inn ffavour of police personnel as oof other persons and it is not aa pproper judicial approach to disstrust and suspect them withoutt good grounds. It will all ddepends upon the facts andd circumstances of each case and no principle of generall application can be laid down.” 12.1. In State of Punjab Vs. Balbir SSingh, 1994(1) Recent Criminall Reports 736 the Hon'ble Supreme Court haas held that, "there is no bar inn recording thee conviction by relying upon thhe statements of police officerss and that testimony of a witness is not to be ddoubted or discarded merely onn the ground thhat he happens to be an official wwitness." 12.2. In Ram Sarup Vs. State (Govtt. of NCR Delhi) 2013(3) RCRR (Criminal) 9946, it has been held by the Hon'bble Apex Court that, "there is noo absolute rulee that police officers cannot bbe cited as a witness and theirr depositions sshould be treated with suspec t. Court cannot start with thee presumption that police records are untrustwworthy." 12.3. A Division Bench of this Courtt in Ramesh Kumar v. State off Punjab, (20113)(4) RCR (Criminal) 320, hass observed that the testimony off PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment -9- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) official witneesses cannot be discarded until it is proved that they have anyy animus or hhostility against the accused foor his false implication. Whilee discussing thhe question of non-joining of thhe independent witnesses, it wass observed thaat they are averse to join the ppolice and depose in favour off prosecution aas they are afraid of the fact thatt joining the police and deposingg in favour of tthe prosecution may expose themm to serious consequences. 12.4. In Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2016 (2) RCRR (Criminal) 7707, it was observed that testimmonies of the official witnessess carry the samme evidentiary value as that oof any other witness and theirr statements ccannot be discarded simply on account of their officiall designation.

13. The next limb of the argumentts raised by the learned counsell for the appelllant is that there is delay of ei ght days in sending the samplee parcel to thee FSL, which casts a serious douubt on the prosecution story. Inn the present ccase, the recovery of contrabandd was effected from the accusedd on 07.04.19998 and on the same day it waas deposited with MHC Nareshh Kumar whoo kept the same in police mmalkhana in safe custody. Onn 15.04.1998, MMHC handed over the sample paarcel to HC Raghbir Singh, whoo deposited thee same in the office of FSL, Maadhuban on the same day. Bothh these witnessses stepped into the witness boxx as PW4 and PW5 respectively.. In their respeective affidavits Ex.PC and Ex.PPD they have categorically statedd that so long the parcel remained in their poossession, neither they tamperedd with the samme nor allowed anybody to tammper with the parcel. Perusal off FSL report EEx.PH reveals that when the sammple parcel was received in thee PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -10- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M)

laboratory, seeals were found intact and tallieed with the specimen seal. Thus,, delay of eighht days in sending the sample iss immaterial and not fatal to thee case of proseecution. The Hon’ble Supreme CCourt in Hardip Singh v. State off Punjab, 20008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 97, haas held that when there is noo evidence thaat samples were tampered with or any prejudice was caused too the accused then even 40 days delay in seending the sample to chemicall examiner waas held not fatal to the prosecutiion case. The aspect of delay inn sending the ssample to the office of Chemical Examiner was also discussed inn Sucha Singhh v. State of Punjab 2015 (4) RRCR (Criminal) 25, wherein itt was held thaat when the samples were not sent to the office of Chemicall Examiner wiithin 72 hours, the prosecution annd conviction cannot be vitiatedd on that grounnd since there was no specific prrovision in the Act in that regardd and the instruuctions/standing orders in that rrespect were only the guideliness to regulate aand control their internal workinng of Narcotic Control Bureau.. Therefore, thhe delay of few days in sendinng the sample to the office off Chemical Exxaminer, Punjab, Chandigarh wa s immaterial and no prejudice iss going to be ccaused to the appellant/accused.

14. As regards to the contention of the learned counsel for thee appellant thatt ASI Sant Raj being the compplainant, was not competent too investigate thee case is concerned, the same caannot be accepted in view of thee settled legal pposition. The Constitution Benc h of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtt in Mukesh Siingh v. State (Narcotic Branchh of Delhi) 2020(10) SCC 120,, has held as unnder: “12. From thee above discussion and for the reeasons stated above, we concludee and answer th e reference as under: PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -11- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) I. That the observations of this CCourt in the cases of Bhagwann Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SSCC 15; Megha Singh v. State off Haryanna (1996) 11 SCC 709; and Staate by Inspector of Police, NIB,, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam (2010) 15 SSCC 369 and the acquittal of thee accuseed by this Court on the groundd that as the informant and thee investiggator was the same, it has vitiaated the trial and the accused iss entitledd to acquittal are to be treated to be confined to their own facts. Itt cannott be said that in the aforesaid deccisions, this Court laid down anyy generaal proposition of law that in eeach and every case where thee informmant is the investigator there is aa bias caused to the accused andd the enntire prosecution case is to be disbelieved and the accused iss entitledd to acquittal;

II. In a case where the informant hiimself is the investigator, by thatt itself ccannot be said that the investiga tion is vitiated on the ground off bias orr the like factor. The question off bias or prejudice would dependd upon the facts and circumstances off each case. Therefore, merelyy becausse the informant is the investigatoor, by that itself the investigationn would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the solee groundd that informant is the investigattor, the accused is not entitled too acquitttal. The matter has to be decidded on a case to case basis. AA contra ry decision of this Court in thee case of Mohan Lal v. State off Punjabb (2018) 17 SCC 627 and any oother decision taking a contraryy view thhat the informant cannot be the innvestigator and in such a case thee accuseed is entitled to acquittal are not ggood law and they are specificallyy overruuled.” PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -12- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M)

15. So far as the contention of the l earned counsel for the appellantt that the provission of Section 50 of NDPS Act have not been complied with byy the prosecutioon is concerned, the law is welll settled. The Hon'ble Supremee Court in Ajmeer Singh v. State of Haryana, ((2010) 3 Supreme Court Casess 746, have helld that for search of bag, brieffcase, container, etc. carried byy accused persoon, compliance with Section 50 oof the NDPS Act is not required.. Their Lordshipps have held as under :-

"15. The learned counsel for thhe appellant contended that thee pprovision of Section 50 of the Act would also apply, whilee searching the bag, brief case etcc., carried by the person and itss noncompliance would be fataal to the proceedings initiatedd under the Act. We find no merit in the contention of the learnedd counsel. It requires to be nnoticed that the question off compliance or non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS. Actt is relevant only where search oof a person is involved and thee said Section is not applicable nnor attracted where no search off a person is involved. Search aand recovery from a bag, brieff case, container, etc., does noot come within the ambit off Section 50 of the NDPS Act, because firstly, Section 500 expressly speaks of search of peerson only. Secondly, the Sectionn speaks of taking of the person to be searched by the Gazettedd Officer or Magistrate for the ppurpose of search. Thirdly, thiss issue in our considered opinionn is no more res-integra in vieww of the observations made by thiss court in the case of Madan Lall PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -13- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003) 7 SCC 465. The Courtt has observed:

"16. A bare reading of Section 50 shows that it onlyy applies in case of personaal search of a person. It does nott extend to search of a vehhicle or a container or a bag orr premises (see Kalema Tuumba v. State of Maharashtraa and Anr. (1999) 8 SCC 257, State of Punjab v. Baldevv Singh (1999) 6 SCC 1722 and Gurbax Singh v. State off Haryana (2001) 3 SCC 228). The language of section iss implicitly clear that the ssearch has to be in relation to aa person as contrast to seearch of premises, vehicles, orr articles. This position waas settled beyond doubt by thee Constitution Bench in Baaldev Singh's case. Above beingg the position, the contentiion regarding noncompliance off Section 50 of the Act is alslso without any substance." 16. x x x 17. x x x 18. It appears from the evidencee on record that the accused wass confronted by ASI Maya Ramm and other police officials onn 24.1.1996 and he was informedd that he has the right to eitherr be searched before the gazettedd officer or before a Magistratee and the accused chose the latter (sic former). Thereafter, thee accused was taken to the DSP,P, Pehowa, Shri Paramjit Singhh AAhalawat and as directed by h im, the bag carried by accusedd PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -14- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M)

on his shoulder was searched a nd the charas was found in thatt bag. Thus, applying the interprretation of the word "search off pperson" as laid down by this CCourt in the decision mentionedd above, to facts of present case, iit is clear that the compliance off Section 50 of the Act is not rrequired. Therefore, the searchh conducted by the investigatioon officer and the evidencee collected thereby, is not illegall. Consequently, we do not findd any merit in the contention oof the learned counsel of thee appellant as regards the noncoompliance of Section 50 of thee AAct." 16. More recently, in the matter of Mehboob Shah v. State off Madhya PrPradesh, Criminal Appeal NNo(s). 3305-3306 of 20266 D/d.21.07.20026; the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-"12. The next contention of the aappellant pertains to the allegedd non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. We find thee same to be devoid of merit. Secttion 50 of the NDPS Act conferss upon an accused a valuable rigght to have his personal searchh conducted before a Gazetted OfOfficer or a Magistrate, if he soo requires. Such right is sacroosanct and indefeasible whichh cannot be disregarded by the prosecution except at its ownn pperil. [See: State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCCC 172] The protection under Sectioon 50 is confined to cases wheree the recovery is sought to be effected through the personall search of the accused. It has no application where the search iss PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -15- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) of an article, such as a bag, ccontainer, suitcase or any otherr object, which the accused may be carrying. [See: State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar, (2005) 4 SCC 350 and Ranjan Kumarr Chadha v. State of H.P., 2023 SSCC Online SC 1262]." …..emphasis supplied 17. Since the recovery of charas wwas effected from the bag whichh the appellantt was carrying on his shoulder, so Section 50 of the NDPS Actt was not appllicable in the present case. Evenn otherwise, in the present case,, the prosecutiion has gone a step further by serving a written notice underr Section 50 NNDPS Act (Ex.PE), despite the faact that the recovery was from aa bag. The apppellant exercised his option to be searched before a Gazettedd Officer and, accordingly, he was searched bbefore PW9 DSP Rattan Singh.. Though Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not apapplicable in the present case butt still the samee has been complied with. Thuus, in view of the settled law ass discussed aboove, the submissions made by leearned counsel for the appellantt with regard tto non compliance of Section 5 0 of the NDPS Act are withoutt any substanc e.

18. On a comprehensive appreciattion of the entire evidence onn record, this CCourt finds that the prosecutionn has proved its case against thee appellant beyyond reasonable doubt. The eviddence of the official witnesses iss trustworthy, consistent and inspires confiddence. Their testimony is dulyy corroborated by the documentary evidence and the report of the Forensicc Science Labooratory. No material contradictioon, omission or discrepancy hass PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -16- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) been pointedd out which goes to the root of the prosecution case or iss sufficient to ddiscredit the otherwise reliable eevidence led by the prosecution. 19. Thus, this Court concludes thaat the findings recorded by thee learned Speccial Judge are based upon properr appreciation of oral as well ass documentaryy evidence and do not suffer frrom any illegality, perversity orr misreading of evidence warranting interrference by this Court. Thee prosecution has successfully established thhat the appellant was found inn conscious poossession of 1.5 kilograms of Charas in contravention of thee provisions off the NDPS Act. 20. Consequently, the appeal, beinng devoid of merit, is herebyy dismissed. TThe judgment of conviction dateed 08.07.2004 and the order off sentence dateed 09.07.2004 passed by the learrned Special Judge, Panipat, aree affirmed.

21. The appellant, if on bail, shall ssurrender before the learned triall Court forthwwith to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. The triall Court shall ttake appropriate steps to secure his custody in accordance withh law. 22. Pending miscellaneous applicattion(s), if any, shall also standd disposed of. (RU PINDERJIT CHAHAL) 27.07.2026 JUDGE Puneet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -17-

CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) IN TTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAARH CRA-S-24889-SB-2004 Reserved onn: 21.05.2026 Pronouncedd on: 27.07.2026 Uploaded oon: 28.07.2026 Whether onlyy operative part of the judgment is Pronounced : No Whether full jjudgment is pronounced: Yes Amar Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Haryyana ...Respondent CORAM: HHON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Ms. Uru Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryyana, for the Respondent State. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. 1. The present appeal has been diirected against the judgment off conviction daated 08.07.2004 and order of senntence dated 09.07.2004 , passedd by the learneed Special Judge, Panipat wherebby the appellant was held guiltyy and convicteed under Section 20 of the Naarcotic Drugs and Psychotropicc Substances AAct, 1985 (for short 'NDPS AAct’) and sentenced to undergoo rigorous impprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 Lac and inn default of paayment of fine, to further underrgo rigorous imprisonment for aa period of twoo years and six months. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -1- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M)

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, thhe case of the prosecution is that,, on 07.04.19998 a police party headed by ASSI Sant Raj (PW-7) was presentt outside bus sstand Panipat in connection withh patrolling. They saw a personn coming fromm bus stand Panipat carrying a bllue bag on his left shoulder. Onn seeing the p olice party he turned back andd started walking at a fast pacee which aroussed suspicion amongst the poolice officials. When he wass apprehended the police party inquired about his identity as he was suspectedd of carrying some contraband in the bag. So a notice Exhibit PE underr Section 50 o f NDPS Act was given to him wwith an option to be searched inn presence of aa Magistrate or a Gazetted Officcer. Vide Ex.PE/1 he opted to bee searched beffore a Gazetted Officer and acc ordingly the bag carried by thee appellant waas searched in the presence of PPW9 Rattan Singh, DSP and 1.55 kgs of Charaas was recovered from him. Aftter separating 100 grams out off the recoveredd contraband as sample, the resi due along with the sample weree sealed with seal 'RS' and was taken into possession by the police videe recovery meemo EX.PF. Thereafter the sammple along with the remainingg contraband aand the accused were producedd before the SHO, who counterr sealed the saample and contraband with his sseal 'SS'. On the same day ASII Sant Raj (PWW7) deposited this sample and tthe remaining contraband in thee Malkhana with HC Naresh Kumar (PW-4) who thereafter handed over thee same along wwith the sample seal on 15.04.19998 to HC Raghbir Singh (PW--

5) for depossiting the same in the Office oof Director FSL Madhuban (onn 15.04.1998) who deposited it with the FSL on the same day. On receipt off the FSL repoort Ex.PH and the completion oof the investigation, challan wass presented agaainst the appellant. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -2- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) 3. Vide order dated 08.05.2001, thhe appellant was charge sheetedd for the commmission of offence punishable unnder Section 20 of the NDPS Actt to which he ppleaded not guilty and claimed trrial. 4. In order to prove its case thee prosecution examined Kartarr Singh, DSP ((Retired) as PW1, Prithviraj ASSI as PW2, H.C. Rajbir Singh ass PW3, H.C. NNaresh Kumar as PW4, H.C. Raaghbir Singh as PW5, Sumandarr Singh DSP aas PW6, Sant Raj ASI (Retired) as PW7, H.C.Dhan Raj as PW88 and Rattan SSingh DSP as PW9 besides tenddering in evidence report of FSLL as Ex.PH andd closed the prosecution evidencce. 5. On the conclusion of thee prosecution evidence, thee incriminatingg circumstances appearing in thee prosecution evidence were putt to the accused during the course of their eexamination under Section 3133 Cr.P.C. The appellant-accused denied thee prosecution allegations andd pleaded falsee implication. No defence evidennce was led by the appellant, inn spite of numbber of opportunities.

6. The learned trial Court, after aappreciating and evaluating thee evidence avaailable on record, held the appeellant guilty and convicted himm under Sectionn 20 of NDPS Act. 7. Learned counsel appearing forr the appellant has assailed thee judgment of conviction by contending that thhe learned trial Court has failedd to appreciatee the evidence on record in iits correct perspective and hass ignored mateerial infirmities which go to the root of the prosecution case. Itt has been arrgued that the conviction has been recorded despite seriouss contradictionns in the testimonies of the prossecution witnesses, unexplainedd delay in sennding the sample to the Forennsic Science Laboratory, non-- PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -3- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) association oof independent witnesses thouggh readily available, and non--compliance wwith the mandatory safeguards embodied under Section 50 off the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substannces Act, 1985.

8. Learned counsel has argued that the prosecution evidencee suffers fromm material inconsistencies regarrding the manner in which thee recovered coontraband was sealed and preserrved. It is submitted that, as perr the ruqa preppared by the Investigating Officeer, the sample parcel was kept inn a tin containner whereas the remaining conntraband was kept in a plasticc container. HHowever, while deposing beforre the Court, the Investigatingg Officer statedd that both the parcels were keppt in tin containers. On the otherr hand, PW-8 Dhan Raj deposed that the sample was kept in a plasticc container whhile the remaining contraband wwas kept in a tin box. Accordingg to learned coounsel, these contradictions relatte to the identity and sanctity off the case propperty and cannot be brushed asidde as minor discrepancies. It hass further been contended that there are materrial contradictions regarding thee sealing of thhe parcels. PW-7 ASI Sant Raaj deposed that two seals weree affixed on thhe sample parcel, whereas PW-88 Dhan Raj stated that only onee seal had beenn affixed. Similarly, PW-7 cate gorically stated that the Deputyy Superintendeent of Police had not affixed hhis seal on the parcels, whereass PW-9 DSP RRattan Singh deposed that the paarcels had also been sealed withh his seal bearring impression "RS". It has beeen argued that these conflictingg versions strikke at the credibility of the prossecution case and cast a seriouss doubt upon the integrity of the sample allegedly recovered from thee appellant.

PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -4- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) 8.1. Learned counsel has also poiinted out that the prosecutionn witnesses haave contradicted each other withh regard to the weights used forr weighing thee alleged contraband. Accordinng to him, these inconsistenciess assume sign ificance in a prosecution undeer the NDPS Act, where strictt adherence too the prescribed procedure is in dispensable and the quantity off the recoveredd substance has a direct bearing on the nature of the offence andd the punishmeent prescribed. 8.2. Another submission advanced by learned counsel is that thee FIR in the prresent case was registered on thee basis of the ruqa sent by PW-77 ASI Sant Raaj, who thereafter continued to iinvestigate the case. It has beenn argued that tthe Investigating Officer himselff being the complainant renderss the investigaation unfair and contrary to the settled principles. According too learned counnsel, the investigation conducteed by the complainant himselff stands vitiateed and the conviction based thereeon cannot be sustained.

8.3. Learned counsel has next conteended that the alleged recoveryy was effectedd from the bus stand at Panipatt, which is admittedly a publicc place havingg high foot fall of general publi c and officials of the Transportt Department. Despite the availability of seeveral independent persons, noo effort was mmade by the investigating agenccy to associate any independentt witness withh the search and recovery procceedings. It is argued that thee omission to jjoin independent witnesses, witthout any plausible explanation,, assumes conssiderable significance in the factts of the present case and createss a serious douubt about the fairness and transpparency of the alleged recovery.. According too learned counsel, the entire reccovery has been falsely plantedd PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -5- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) upon the apppellant after preparing the neceessary documents at the policee station. 8.4. It has further been argued that tthere is an unexplained delay off eight days inn sending the sample parcel to thhe Forensic Science Laboratory.. Learned couunsel submits that the prosecuution has failed to furnish anyy satisfactory explanation for such delay. Inn the absence of any evidencee regarding thee safe custody of the sample duuring the intervening period, thee possibility off tampering with the sample cannnot be ruled out.

8.5. Lastly, learned counsel has vehhemently argued that there hass been comple te non-compliance with the manndatory provisions of Section 500 of the NDPS Act. Referring to memo Exx. PE, it is submitted that thee appellant wa s merely informed that he could be searched in the presence of aa Gazetted Offficer or a Magistrate. However, he was never informed that hee possessed a llegal right to demand that the s earch be conducted before suchh an officer. According to learned counsel, the communication of this valuablee legal right iss mandatory and not a mere forrmality. Since the appellant wass not apprised of his statutory right in the maanner contemplated by law, thee entire searchh and recovery stand vitiated. IIt is, therefore, prayed that thee conviction annd sentence recorded by the learrned trial Court be set aside andd the appellantt be acquitted of the charges. 9. Per contra, learned State counssel has argued that the materiall prosecution witnesses have deposed cons istently regarding recovery off charas from the possession of appellant-acccused, without any licence orr permit. Learnned State counsel further arguedd that the alleged contradictionss in the statemments of the prosecution witnessees are minor in nature and do nott PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -6- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M)

affect the casse of the prosecution at all. Learnned State counsel further arguedd that though aappellant was apprehended fromm a public place but the searchh and recoveryy of contraband was effected in the office of the DSP. Learnedd State counseel further argued that investiggating officer tried to join thee witnesses froom the public but no one came fforward to join the police party.. Learned Statte counsel further argued that mmerely on account of non joiningg of independdent witness, prosecution cas e cannot be doubted, whichh otherwise staands proved. Learned State counnsel further argued that the delayy of 8 days in sending the sample to the FSL iis not fatal as it has been provedd by the proseccution that the sample remained intact till it reached the office off FSL and wass not tampered with at any stage.. The same is fortified by Ex.PHH i.e. the FSL rreport. Lastly, learned State coounsel submitted that Section 500 of the NDPSS Act is not applicable in the prresent case as the recovery wass effected fromm the bag which the accused waas carrying on his left shoulder.. Thus, learnedd State counsel prayed that the judgment of conviction passedd by the Learneed Special Judge be upheld. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gonee through the rrecord with their able assistance.

11. So far as discrepancies pointedd out by the learned counsel forr the appellantt in the statements of PW’s Santt Raj, Dhan Raj and DSP Rattann Singh are conncerned, suffice it to say that samme are minor discrepancies. Thee material fact is that the appellant was appre hended from bus stand, Panipatt on the basis oof suspicion. The search of his bbag which led to recovery of 1.55 kg charas froom his conscious possession, wiithout any licence or permit wass conducted inn the office of DSP Rattan Singh in his presence. Thee PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -7- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) discrepanciess about the weights used for weeighing the contraband, numberr of seals affixed on the parcels, time of prroduction of accused and casee property beffore SHO and other discrepanccies pointed out by the learnedd counsel for tthe appellant are not material annd the same do not go to root off the prosecutiion case. Such type of discrepanncies do occur in the statementss of the proseccution witnesses more so when thhe witnesses are being examinedd after more tthan five years from the date of recovery. The testimony off prosecution witnesses in the present case hhas remained consistent on alll material partiiculars.

12. So far as the contention of the l earned counsel for the appellantt regarding noon joining of independent witneess is concerned, it is observedd that people aare often hesitant in joining pollice investigation for variety off reasons. PWW-7 ASI Sant Raj has clearlyy stated that he tried to joinn independent witness but all expressed theiir helplessness. It is now welll settled that eevidence of a witness cannot be rejected merely because hee happens to bbe an official witness. In the ppresent case, nothing could bee elucidated frrom the cross examinations of PPW’s Sant Raj, Dhan Raj, DSPP Rattan Singhh and DSP Samundar Singh, sso as to raise any dispute withh regard to rec overy of contraband from the poossession of the appellant or thatt their statemeents are partisan in nature or thatt they had any motive to plant aa false recoverry upon the appellant. In these circumstances, this Court is off considered oopinion, that testimonies of officcial witnesses inspire confidencee and the samme are held to be reliable. In KKaramjit Singh v. State (Delhii PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -8- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) Administratiion), AIR 2003 SC 1311, the HHon’ble Supreme Court has heldd as under:

“The testimony of police persoonnel should be treated in thee same manner as testimony of anny other witness and there is noo pprinciple of law that without corroboration by independentt witnesses their testimony caannot be relied upon. Thee ppresumption that a person actts honestly applies as much inn ffavour of police personnel as oof other persons and it is not aa pproper judicial approach to disstrust and suspect them withoutt good grounds. It will all ddepends upon the facts andd circumstances of each case and no principle of generall application can be laid down.” 12.1. In State of Punjab Vs. Balbir SSingh, 1994(1) Recent Criminall Reports 736 the Hon'ble Supreme Court haas held that, "there is no bar inn recording thee conviction by relying upon thhe statements of police officerss and that testimony of a witness is not to be ddoubted or discarded merely onn the ground thhat he happens to be an official wwitness." 12.2. In Ram Sarup Vs. State (Govtt. of NCR Delhi) 2013(3) RCRR (Criminal) 9946, it has been held by the Hon'bble Apex Court that, "there is noo absolute rulee that police officers cannot bbe cited as a witness and theirr depositions sshould be treated with suspec t. Court cannot start with thee presumption that police records are untrustwworthy." 12.3. A Division Bench of this Courtt in Ramesh Kumar v. State off Punjab, (20113)(4) RCR (Criminal) 320, hass observed that the testimony off PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment -9- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) official witneesses cannot be discarded until it is proved that they have anyy animus or hhostility against the accused foor his false implication. Whilee discussing thhe question of non-joining of thhe independent witnesses, it wass observed thaat they are averse to join the ppolice and depose in favour off prosecution aas they are afraid of the fact thatt joining the police and deposingg in favour of tthe prosecution may expose themm to serious consequences. 12.4. In Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2016 (2) RCRR (Criminal) 7707, it was observed that testimmonies of the official witnessess carry the samme evidentiary value as that oof any other witness and theirr statements ccannot be discarded simply on account of their officiall designation.

13. The next limb of the argumentts raised by the learned counsell for the appelllant is that there is delay of ei ght days in sending the samplee parcel to thee FSL, which casts a serious douubt on the prosecution story. Inn the present ccase, the recovery of contrabandd was effected from the accusedd on 07.04.19998 and on the same day it waas deposited with MHC Nareshh Kumar whoo kept the same in police mmalkhana in safe custody. Onn 15.04.1998, MMHC handed over the sample paarcel to HC Raghbir Singh, whoo deposited thee same in the office of FSL, Maadhuban on the same day. Bothh these witnessses stepped into the witness boxx as PW4 and PW5 respectively.. In their respeective affidavits Ex.PC and Ex.PPD they have categorically statedd that so long the parcel remained in their poossession, neither they tamperedd with the samme nor allowed anybody to tammper with the parcel. Perusal off FSL report EEx.PH reveals that when the sammple parcel was received in thee PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -10- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M)

laboratory, seeals were found intact and tallieed with the specimen seal. Thus,, delay of eighht days in sending the sample iss immaterial and not fatal to thee case of proseecution. The Hon’ble Supreme CCourt in Hardip Singh v. State off Punjab, 20008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 97, haas held that when there is noo evidence thaat samples were tampered with or any prejudice was caused too the accused then even 40 days delay in seending the sample to chemicall examiner waas held not fatal to the prosecutiion case. The aspect of delay inn sending the ssample to the office of Chemical Examiner was also discussed inn Sucha Singhh v. State of Punjab 2015 (4) RRCR (Criminal) 25, wherein itt was held thaat when the samples were not sent to the office of Chemicall Examiner wiithin 72 hours, the prosecution annd conviction cannot be vitiatedd on that grounnd since there was no specific prrovision in the Act in that regardd and the instruuctions/standing orders in that rrespect were only the guideliness to regulate aand control their internal workinng of Narcotic Control Bureau.. Therefore, thhe delay of few days in sendinng the sample to the office off Chemical Exxaminer, Punjab, Chandigarh wa s immaterial and no prejudice iss going to be ccaused to the appellant/accused.

14. As regards to the contention of the learned counsel for thee appellant thatt ASI Sant Raj being the compplainant, was not competent too investigate thee case is concerned, the same caannot be accepted in view of thee settled legal pposition. The Constitution Benc h of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtt in Mukesh Siingh v. State (Narcotic Branchh of Delhi) 2020(10) SCC 120,, has held as unnder: “12. From thee above discussion and for the reeasons stated above, we concludee and answer th e reference as under: PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -11- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) I. That the observations of this CCourt in the cases of Bhagwann Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SSCC 15; Megha Singh v. State off Haryanna (1996) 11 SCC 709; and Staate by Inspector of Police, NIB,, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam (2010) 15 SSCC 369 and the acquittal of thee accuseed by this Court on the groundd that as the informant and thee investiggator was the same, it has vitiaated the trial and the accused iss entitledd to acquittal are to be treated to be confined to their own facts. Itt cannott be said that in the aforesaid deccisions, this Court laid down anyy generaal proposition of law that in eeach and every case where thee informmant is the investigator there is aa bias caused to the accused andd the enntire prosecution case is to be disbelieved and the accused iss entitledd to acquittal;

II. In a case where the informant hiimself is the investigator, by thatt itself ccannot be said that the investiga tion is vitiated on the ground off bias orr the like factor. The question off bias or prejudice would dependd upon the facts and circumstances off each case. Therefore, merelyy becausse the informant is the investigatoor, by that itself the investigationn would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the solee groundd that informant is the investigattor, the accused is not entitled too acquitttal. The matter has to be decidded on a case to case basis. AA contra ry decision of this Court in thee case of Mohan Lal v. State off Punjabb (2018) 17 SCC 627 and any oother decision taking a contraryy view thhat the informant cannot be the innvestigator and in such a case thee accuseed is entitled to acquittal are not ggood law and they are specificallyy overruuled.” PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -12- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M)

15. So far as the contention of the l earned counsel for the appellantt that the provission of Section 50 of NDPS Act have not been complied with byy the prosecutioon is concerned, the law is welll settled. The Hon'ble Supremee Court in Ajmeer Singh v. State of Haryana, ((2010) 3 Supreme Court Casess 746, have helld that for search of bag, brieffcase, container, etc. carried byy accused persoon, compliance with Section 50 oof the NDPS Act is not required.. Their Lordshipps have held as under :-

"15. The learned counsel for thhe appellant contended that thee pprovision of Section 50 of the Act would also apply, whilee searching the bag, brief case etcc., carried by the person and itss noncompliance would be fataal to the proceedings initiatedd under the Act. We find no merit in the contention of the learnedd counsel. It requires to be nnoticed that the question off compliance or non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS. Actt is relevant only where search oof a person is involved and thee said Section is not applicable nnor attracted where no search off a person is involved. Search aand recovery from a bag, brieff case, container, etc., does noot come within the ambit off Section 50 of the NDPS Act, because firstly, Section 500 expressly speaks of search of peerson only. Secondly, the Sectionn speaks of taking of the person to be searched by the Gazettedd Officer or Magistrate for the ppurpose of search. Thirdly, thiss issue in our considered opinionn is no more res-integra in vieww of the observations made by thiss court in the case of Madan Lall PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -13- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003) 7 SCC 465. The Courtt has observed:

"16. A bare reading of Section 50 shows that it onlyy applies in case of personaal search of a person. It does nott extend to search of a vehhicle or a container or a bag orr premises (see Kalema Tuumba v. State of Maharashtraa and Anr. (1999) 8 SCC 257, State of Punjab v. Baldevv Singh (1999) 6 SCC 1722 and Gurbax Singh v. State off Haryana (2001) 3 SCC 228). The language of section iss implicitly clear that the ssearch has to be in relation to aa person as contrast to seearch of premises, vehicles, orr articles. This position waas settled beyond doubt by thee Constitution Bench in Baaldev Singh's case. Above beingg the position, the contentiion regarding noncompliance off Section 50 of the Act is alslso without any substance." 16. x x x 17. x x x 18. It appears from the evidencee on record that the accused wass confronted by ASI Maya Ramm and other police officials onn 24.1.1996 and he was informedd that he has the right to eitherr be searched before the gazettedd officer or before a Magistratee and the accused chose the latter (sic former). Thereafter, thee accused was taken to the DSP,P, Pehowa, Shri Paramjit Singhh AAhalawat and as directed by h im, the bag carried by accusedd PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -14- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M)

on his shoulder was searched a nd the charas was found in thatt bag. Thus, applying the interprretation of the word "search off pperson" as laid down by this CCourt in the decision mentionedd above, to facts of present case, iit is clear that the compliance off Section 50 of the Act is not rrequired. Therefore, the searchh conducted by the investigatioon officer and the evidencee collected thereby, is not illegall. Consequently, we do not findd any merit in the contention oof the learned counsel of thee appellant as regards the noncoompliance of Section 50 of thee AAct." 16. More recently, in the matter of Mehboob Shah v. State off Madhya PrPradesh, Criminal Appeal NNo(s). 3305-3306 of 20266 D/d.21.07.20026; the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-"12. The next contention of the aappellant pertains to the allegedd non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. We find thee same to be devoid of merit. Secttion 50 of the NDPS Act conferss upon an accused a valuable rigght to have his personal searchh conducted before a Gazetted OfOfficer or a Magistrate, if he soo requires. Such right is sacroosanct and indefeasible whichh cannot be disregarded by the prosecution except at its ownn pperil. [See: State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCCC 172] The protection under Sectioon 50 is confined to cases wheree the recovery is sought to be effected through the personall search of the accused. It has no application where the search iss PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37

I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -15- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) of an article, such as a bag, ccontainer, suitcase or any otherr object, which the accused may be carrying. [See: State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar, (2005) 4 SCC 350 and Ranjan Kumarr Chadha v. State of H.P., 2023 SSCC Online SC 1262]." …..emphasis supplied 17. Since the recovery of charas wwas effected from the bag whichh the appellantt was carrying on his shoulder, so Section 50 of the NDPS Actt was not appllicable in the present case. Evenn otherwise, in the present case,, the prosecutiion has gone a step further by serving a written notice underr Section 50 NNDPS Act (Ex.PE), despite the faact that the recovery was from aa bag. The apppellant exercised his option to be searched before a Gazettedd Officer and, accordingly, he was searched bbefore PW9 DSP Rattan Singh.. Though Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not apapplicable in the present case butt still the samee has been complied with. Thuus, in view of the settled law ass discussed aboove, the submissions made by leearned counsel for the appellantt with regard tto non compliance of Section 5 0 of the NDPS Act are withoutt any substanc e.

18. On a comprehensive appreciattion of the entire evidence onn record, this CCourt finds that the prosecutionn has proved its case against thee appellant beyyond reasonable doubt. The eviddence of the official witnesses iss trustworthy, consistent and inspires confiddence. Their testimony is dulyy corroborated by the documentary evidence and the report of the Forensicc Science Labooratory. No material contradictioon, omission or discrepancy hass PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -16- CRA-S-24899-SB-2004 (O&M) been pointedd out which goes to the root of the prosecution case or iss sufficient to ddiscredit the otherwise reliable eevidence led by the prosecution. 19. Thus, this Court concludes thaat the findings recorded by thee learned Speccial Judge are based upon properr appreciation of oral as well ass documentaryy evidence and do not suffer frrom any illegality, perversity orr misreading of evidence warranting interrference by this Court. Thee prosecution has successfully established thhat the appellant was found inn conscious poossession of 1.5 kilograms of Charas in contravention of thee provisions off the NDPS Act. 20. Consequently, the appeal, beinng devoid of merit, is herebyy dismissed. TThe judgment of conviction dateed 08.07.2004 and the order off sentence dateed 09.07.2004 passed by the learrned Special Judge, Panipat, aree affirmed.

21. The appellant, if on bail, shall ssurrender before the learned triall Court forthwwith to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. The triall Court shall ttake appropriate steps to secure his custody in accordance withh law. 22. Pending miscellaneous applicattion(s), if any, shall also standd disposed of. (RU PINDERJIT CHAHAL) 27.07.2026 JUDGE Puneet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.28 13.37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -17-