Supreme Court affirms conviction under Narcotic Drugs Act

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. The court rejected the defense's contentions regarding legitimacy of the defense case, compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 55 of the Act, delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and bias due to the investigating officer being the complainant. The appeal was found to lack merit, and the court directed the appellant to serve the remaining sentence as per the law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the defense case.
2. Compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 55 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.
3. Delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).
4. Bias due to the investigating officer being the complainant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Defense Case:
The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated by Inspector Jarnail Singh due to a personal grudge stemming from a vehicular accident on 26.7.1997. The defense presented a written apology (Ex. DB) and complaints (Ex. DC and Ex. DD) to substantiate this claim. However, the court found the document of apology dubious as it lacked the signature of Inspector Jarnail Singh and was not corroborated during cross-examination. The complaints were produced only during the examination of Gurdial Singh, the appellant's father, and their receipt was not proven. Consequently, the court deemed the defense version untrustworthy and rejected it.

2. Compliance with Mandatory Provisions of Section 55 of the Act:
The appellant argued that there was non-compliance with Section 55 of the Act, which mandates that the officer in charge of a police station affix their seal on seized articles. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *Karnail Singh v. State of Rajasthan* which clarified that compliance with Section 55 is not necessary if the seized articles are forwarded to an officer empowered under Section 53. In this case, the samples were handed over to Inspector Baldev Singh (PW 1), who maintained their integrity. The court found no prejudice caused to the appellant due to the handling of the samples, thus dismissing this contention.

3. Delay in Sending Samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL):
The appellant argued that the 40-day delay in sending the samples to the FSL rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. The court noted that the recovery of opium from the appellant was corroborated by reliable witnesses, including DSP SS Mann. The integrity of the samples was maintained, as evidenced by the intact seals when received by the Chemical Examiner. The court concluded that the delay did not prejudice the appellant and rejected this argument.

4. Bias Due to the Investigating Officer Being the Complainant:
The appellant contended that Inspector Jarnail Singh, being the complainant, should not have been the investigating officer. The court referred to the decision in *State v. V. Jayapaul*, which held that an investigating officer can investigate a case even if they are the complainant, unless bias is proven. The court found no evidence of bias or unfair investigation, noting that the defense's version was a fabricated story. Thus, this contention was also dismissed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, directing the appellant to serve the remaining sentence as per the law.

---