Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, accused acquitted under NDPS Act.

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside. The accused was acquitted of the charges under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and ordered to be released immediately if not needed in any other case.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
2. Compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
3. Examination of independent witness.
4. Possibility of tampering with case property.
5. Non-production of sample before the court.
6. Doubts regarding the prosecution case.

Detailed Analysis

Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985
The defense argued that there was no compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The prosecution's witnesses, ASI Ajaib Singh and SI Gurwinder Singh, provided conflicting statements about who communicated the right of search to the accused and in what language. ASI Ajaib Singh stated that he communicated the right in English, while SI Gurwinder Singh claimed he did it himself. The court found that the accused were not properly informed about their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, rendering the search defective.

Compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985
The defense contended that the provisions of Section 42 were not followed, as the secret information received was not separately recorded in writing. The court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Darshan Singh Versus State of Haryana, which clarified that recording the information in the FIR does not fulfill the requirement of Section 42. The court concluded that the failure to separately record the secret information violated Section 42.

Examination of Independent Witness
The defense highlighted that the independent witness, Jaspal Singh, was not examined. The court noted that it is often challenging for the police to secure the cooperation of independent witnesses due to fear of reprisal. Therefore, the non-examination of Jaspal Singh was deemed not material to the case.

Possibility of Tampering with Case Property
The defense argued that the Station House Officer, who sealed the case property, kept the seal with him, raising the possibility of tampering. The court dismissed this argument, stating that there were multiple seals on the case property and no evidence of tampering was presented.

Non-Production of Sample Before the Court
The defense claimed that the sample taken before the court was not produced. The court found this insufficient to dismiss the prosecution's case. Similarly, the court held that the absence of photographs during compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, 1985, was not fatal to the prosecution.

Doubts Regarding the Prosecution Case
The court noted that similar quantities of heroin were allegedly recovered from the accused, which appeared suspicious. Coupled with the aforementioned issues, this raised reasonable doubts about the prosecution's case.

Conclusion
The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.8.2013 were set aside. The accused was acquitted of the charges under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

---