NDPS search safeguards and recovery proof sustained a conviction for alprazolam possession despite procedural objections.

Possession of alprazolam under the NDPS Act was sustained because the accused was informed of the right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and consented to police search, satisfying Section 50. The missing signature of the recovery witness on the written consent memo caused no prejudice, as the accused's signature and oral proof of communication were accepted. The small difference between the seized and laboratory weight was treated as negligible and not suggestive of tampering. The Section 313 CrPC objection also failed because the essential incriminating recovery was put to the accused. The forensic report and chain of custody were found reliable, and the conviction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for possession of alprazolam under the NDPS Act was liable to be set aside on the grounds of alleged non-compliance with search safeguards, discrepancy in quantity, defects in the consent memo and statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and alleged infirmities in the recovery and forensic evidence.

Analysis: The recovery witness evidence and the contemporaneous recovery memo established that the accused was apprised of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and thereafter consented to search by the police party, satisfying the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The omission of the witness's signature on the written consent memo did not prejudice the accused, as the memo bore the accused's signature and the oral communication of the right was otherwise proved. The difference between 120 grams at seizure and 118.10 grams at the forensic laboratory was held to be negligible and explainable by variation in weighing, and did not create a real doubt about identity of the contraband. The objection based on the absence of specific questions in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected because the essential incriminating circumstance of recovery was put to the accused, and the omitted detail did not cause prejudice. The forensic report and the chain of custody were accepted, and the Court found no material tampering or infirmity in the prosecution evidence. Once possession of contraband was established, the statutory burden under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act operated against the accused, who failed to rebut it.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

---