Corroborated possession evidence and valid search safeguards sustained a narcotics conviction despite minor inconsistencies and alleged sampling delay.

Reliable and corroborated prosecution evidence was treated as sufficient to establish possession of heroin recovered from a hotel room occupied by the appellant, and minor inconsistencies did not undermine the core case. The search objection failed because the operation was carried out by empowered officers with supervisory presence, and the statutory safeguards on recording reasons were held inapplicable on the facts. The complaint about delay in forwarding the sample to the Magistrate also failed because no actual delay or prejudice was shown. The conviction and sentence were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the prosecution proved that the appellant was in possession of heroin recovered from the hotel room, (ii) whether the search was vitiated for non-compliance with the statutory requirements governing search and seizure, and (iii) whether delay in forwarding the sample to the Magistrate affected the prosecution case.

Issue (i): whether the prosecution proved that the appellant was in possession of heroin recovered from the hotel room.

Analysis: The evidence of the officers conducting the search, the hotel manager, and the panch witness was found trustworthy and mutually corroborative. The materials recovered from the room occupied by the appellant, including heroin, passports bearing his photographs, and cash, supported the inference that the appellant was staying in the room and was in possession of the contraband. Minor inconsistencies as to the exact manner of apprehension did not discredit the core prosecution version.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant and the finding of possession was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the search was vitiated for non-compliance with the statutory requirements governing search and seizure.

Analysis: The search was held to be conducted by an empowered officer in the presence and under the supervision of another empowered officer. The officers had surveillance information about the appellant's presence and were not acting on prior information that narcotic drugs were concealed in a specific room. On these facts, the statutory objection based on the recording of reasons and compliance with the relevant search safeguards was rejected.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant and the search was held valid.

Issue (iii): whether delay in forwarding the sample to the Magistrate affected the prosecution case.

Analysis: The provision relied upon was found inapplicable on the facts, and in any event no material was produced to establish any actual delay causing prejudice. The objection was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were sustained and the appeal failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: When the prosecution evidence is found reliable and corroborated, a conviction for narcotic offences will not be disturbed merely because of minor inconsistencies, and statutory objections to search or sampling fail where the search is by empowered officers and no actual prejudice or delay is established.

---