Contemporaneous seizure proof and independent corroboration are essential; doubtful NDPS recovery evidence led to acquittal.

Conviction for possession of contraband under the NDPS Act was found unsustainable where the seizure record raised serious doubt about contemporaneity, as the seizure memo, personal search memo and rukka allegedly prepared at the spot bore the FIR number without explanation. The prosecution also failed to produce any independent public witness despite the alleged recovery on a busy road, and made no effective effort to join neutral witnesses. The omission to record recovery of the gunny bag in the personal search memo further weakened the seizure evidence. The conviction and sentence were set aside and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for possession of contraband under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained on the evidence of recovery and search.

Analysis: The prosecution version was found unsafe because the seizure memo, personal search memo, and rukka allegedly prepared at the spot bore the FIR number, creating a serious doubt as to whether they were prepared contemporaneously. No satisfactory explanation was given for this anomaly. The Court also noted the absence of any independent public witness despite the alleged recovery having taken place on a busy road, and found that no effective effort was made to associate neutral witnesses. In addition, the personal search memo did not record recovery of the gunny bag, which further weakened the prosecution case regarding seizure from the appellant's possession.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were not sustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal with consequential release and refund of fine, if paid.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the contemporaneity of seizure documents is doubtful, independent corroboration is absent, and material omissions weaken the seizure evidence, conviction for narcotic offences cannot be sustained.

---