Appeal Dismissed: Heroin Possession Conviction and 10-Year Sentence Upheld

The appellant was convicted for possessing heroin and sentenced to ten years of Rigorous Imprisonment. The court upheld the conviction, dismissing arguments related to search and seizure location, compliance with NDPS Act sections, reliability of official testimony, admissibility of reports, and non-involvement of a co-accused. The appellant's confessional statement, uncontested during the trial, along with contraband recovery, formed strong evidence leading to the dismissal of the appeal and affirmation of the conviction and sentence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Conduct of search and seizure.
2. Compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act.
3. Reliability of official testimony versus independent witnesses.
4. Compliance with Section 55 NDPS Act.
5. Admissibility of CRCL report.
6. Non-involvement of co-accused Jagdeep Singh.
7. Confessional statement and its impact.

Summary:

1. Conduct of Search and Seizure:
The appellant was convicted for possessing 5 kilograms of heroin and sentenced to ten years of Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The appellant argued that the search should have been conducted at the spot rather than at the ITO office, 25 kilometers away. The court dismissed this argument, citing precedents where searches conducted away from the spot were upheld due to practical reasons, such as the need for proper facilities and language barriers.

2. Compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act:
The appellant contended that his search was not conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer as required u/s 50 NDPS Act. The court found this argument unconvincing, noting that the contraband was recovered from the car, not from a personal search of the appellant. Therefore, Section 50 was deemed inapplicable.

3. Reliability of Official Testimony versus Independent Witnesses:
The appellant argued that independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, and reliance on official testimony alone was unsafe. The court rejected this, stating that the mere fact that witnesses are police officers does not invalidate their testimony. The court cited multiple precedents affirming the reliability of official acts and testimonies in the absence of evidence of hostility.

4. Compliance with Section 55 NDPS Act:
The appellant claimed non-compliance with Section 55 NDPS Act, arguing that the case property should have been deposited in the local Police Station's malkhana. The court dismissed this, stating that officers of the Custom Department are empowered to deposit case property in their own malkhana as per a government notification.

5. Admissibility of CRCL Report:
The appellant challenged the admissibility of the CRCL report, arguing that it was not signed by all individuals who handled the samples. The court found this argument meritless, stating that the report is per se admissible in evidence without formal proof, and the supervision of the Chemical Examiner suffices.

6. Non-involvement of Co-accused Jagdeep Singh:
The appellant questioned why Jagdeep Singh, who was apprehended with him, was neither made an accused nor a witness. The court explained that Jagdeep Singh was not involved due to lack of evidence against him and his statement denying knowledge of the contraband.

7. Confessional Statement and Its Impact:
The appellant's confessional statement was pivotal in the court's decision. The court noted that the appellant did not contest the confessional statement during the trial. The statement, corroborated by the recovery of contraband, formed strong evidence against the appellant. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence.

---