NDPS conviction sustained on credible police evidence, proved statutory compliance, and possession-based recovery despite hostile witnesses.

Credible official witnesses can sustain an NDPS conviction even when independent witnesses turn hostile, and their evidence need not be discarded merely for that reason. The Court also held that compliance with the statutory search, seizure, sealing, custody and sample-forwarding requirements was proved, and treated the sample-number discrepancy as a clerical error. It further found that the FIR-recording officer did not in fact continue as investigator, so the proceedings were not vitiated on that ground. Ownership of the vehicle was held immaterial where possession and recovery of contraband from the accused were proved, and no basis was found to reduce the sentence. The conviction and sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained on the basis of police witnesses when the independent witnesses turned hostile; (ii) Whether compliance with Sections 42, 50 and 55 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was proved; (iii) Whether the proceedings were vitiated because the officer who recorded the FIR was said to be the investigating officer; (iv) Whether failure to prove ownership or subsequent recovery of the vehicle affected the prosecution case; and (v) Whether a lesser sentence ought to be imposed.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained on the basis of police witnesses when the independent witnesses turned hostile.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence of the official witnesses was found reliable and trustworthy. The Court held that there is no rule of law that police evidence must be discarded merely because independent witnesses do not support the prosecution. Non-examination or hostility of independent witnesses is not by itself fatal if the official witnesses are credible and the recovery is otherwise proved.

Conclusion: The conviction was sustained; this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether compliance with Sections 42, 50 and 55 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was proved.

Analysis: The Court accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to hold that the statutory procedure was complied with. It was found that the information, search, seizure, sealing, custody and forwarding of samples were duly established, and the discrepancy in sample numbering was treated as a clerical error without affecting the genuineness of the recovery or the sample sent for forensic examination.

Conclusion: Compliance with the mandatory provisions was held proved; this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the proceedings were vitiated because the officer who recorded the FIR was said to be the investigating officer.

Analysis: On facts, the Court found that after recording the FIR, further investigation was conducted by another officer. The objection based on the same person being complainant and investigator did not survive on the record and was also not pressed in view of the later legal position.

Conclusion: The trial was held not to be vitiated on this ground; this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (iv): Whether failure to prove ownership or subsequent recovery of the vehicle affected the prosecution case.

Analysis: The Court held that in an NDPS prosecution, ownership of the vehicle is not material where contraband is recovered from the accused from the vehicle. What matters is proof of possession and recovery of the contraband, which was established on the evidence.

Conclusion: The absence of proof of vehicle ownership or later recovery did not help the appellant; this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (v): Whether a lesser sentence ought to be imposed.

Analysis: Considering the nature of the offence and the sentence already awarded, the Court found no justification to reduce the punishment further.

Conclusion: The request for leniency was rejected; this issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence for the NDPS offence were upheld, and no interference was called for in appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Credible official witnesses may sustain an NDPS conviction even if independent witnesses turn hostile, and proved recovery of contraband with compliance of statutory procedure is sufficient to uphold guilt.

---