NDPS conviction sustained despite recovery objections, delayed FSL forwarding, and belated compliance with reporting requirements.

Conviction for possession and recovery of heroin under the NDPS Act was upheld because the police witnesses gave a consistent account of the interception and seizure, and minor discrepancies in the site plan and timing were treated as insignificant. The absence of independent witnesses did not weaken the prosecution where public persons had refused to join the recovery. The seizure was properly sealed at the spot, the forensic report confirmed the seal remained intact, and delay in forwarding the sample did not by itself suggest tampering. Filing the charge-sheet before receipt of the FSL report did not make the investigation incomplete, and belated compliance with the reporting requirement was accepted on the facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for possession and recovery of heroin under the NDPS Act was sustainable despite objections regarding the place of recovery, absence of independent witnesses, delay in forwarding the seized substance to the forensic laboratory, non-production of the malkhana register, submission of charge-sheet before receipt of the FSL report, and alleged non-compliance with Section 57 of the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The evidence of the police witnesses was found consistent on the place and manner of interception and recovery. The alleged discrepancies regarding the site plan and the short time gap between the patrol reaching the spot and the arrest were treated as insignificant. The absence of a public witness did not discredit the prosecution where the witnesses stated that persons from the public declined to join the recovery. The seized substance was found to have been sealed at the spot, and the forensic report showed that the seal remained intact. Delay in sending the sample to the laboratory did not by itself create doubt of tampering. The submission of the charge-sheet before receipt of the FSL report did not render the investigation incomplete, since the report under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is admissible in evidence. Compliance with Section 57 of the NDPS Act was treated as directory and belated compliance was found sufficient in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and the challenge to the prosecution case failed.

---