NDPS prosecution evidence upheld despite no independent witness and pre-sampling mixing, absent demonstrated prejudice.

In NDPS prosecutions, conviction may rest on reliable official witnesses even where an independent witness is not examined, particularly when the witness's presence at the spot is reflected in the seizure records and no animosity or unreliability is shown. The court accepted the police testimony with the seizure memorandum, FIR and FSL report, and rejected the challenge based on non-examination of the independent witness. It also held that mixing contraband from two bags before sampling did not vitiate the case or cause prejudice, because the recovered quantity remained commercial and no infirmity affecting the foundation of the charge was demonstrated. The conviction and sentence were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the conviction under the NDPS Act could be sustained on the testimony of official witnesses despite non-examination of the independent witness; and (ii) whether the mixing of contraband from two bags before sampling vitiated the prosecution case or caused prejudice to the accused.

Issue (i): whether the conviction under the NDPS Act could be sustained on the testimony of official witnesses despite non-examination of the independent witness.

Analysis: The recovery was supported by the signatures of the independent witness on the relevant memoranda, showing his presence at the spot. Though examination of an independent witness is desirable, the absence of such examination does not by itself discredit the prosecution where the official witnesses are found reliable and no animosity against them is established. The evidence of the police officers, read with the seizure documents, FIR and FSL report, was accepted as trustworthy.

Conclusion: The conviction could be sustained on the basis of reliable official witnesses, and the contention based on non-examination of the independent witness was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the mixing of contraband from two bags before sampling vitiated the prosecution case or caused prejudice to the accused.

Analysis: The contraband recovered from the car was found to be 69.50 kg after sampling, which was well above the commercial quantity threshold. The Court held that the mere mixing of the contents of two bags before drawing samples did not cause prejudice to the accused, because the quantity remained commercial in any event and the punishment under Section 15 of the NDPS Act depended on the quantity involved. No infirmity in the sampling process sufficient to upset the conviction was shown.

Conclusion: The sampling procedure did not vitiate the prosecution case, and the objection regarding mixing of the bags was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The findings of the trial court and the High Court were affirmed, and the conviction and sentence were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In NDPS prosecutions, conviction is not unsustainable merely because an independent witness is not examined if the official witnesses are reliable and no prejudice is shown; procedural objection to sampling will not invalidate the case absent demonstrated prejudice affecting the quantity or the foundation of the charge.

---