PRANTOSH PAUL, WEST TRIPURA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned P.P. for the State.

(2.) BOTH the appeals are tied up together as those appeals have emerged from the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2011 passed by the Special Judge, Tripura, Agartala in case No. Special 43 of 2009. The appellants have been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act, in short) as 10 Kg. of cannabis (ganja) were found in their possession when they were intercepted by the officers of the Enforcement Branch. It had been alleged that on 13.08.2009 when the appellants were carrying the alleged contraband narcotic substances in a maruti car bearing registration No.TR -01 -B -0267, they were intercepted at Nagerjala and the said quantity of narcotic substances were found in two plastic packets in their possession. They were arrested and the ganja as recovered from them was seized by preparing a seizure list (Exbt.1). After the investigation was complete, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act along with the forensic report by the State Forensic Science Laboratory (the SFSL, in short) which opined that the materials those were referred for examination were ganja, having the psychotropic ingredient. The charge was framed under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act to which the appellants pleaded total innocence and had claimed to face the trial.

(3.) MR . B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at the very outset has submitted that though in the First Information Report submitted by the informant namely, Nayan Jyoti Chakma (PW -1) it has been stated that on the tip of the secret information, the said operation was conducted but the said information borne in the GD entry No. 271 dated 13.08.2009 was neither produced in the trial nor the officer, who received the information namely, Atul Debbarma, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Enforcement Branch) was examined in the trial to establish that there had reasons to believe for conducting such search and seizure for breach of Section 8(C) of the NDPS Act. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has urged this Court to appreciate how the mandatory provisions of Section 42 and Section 52A along with Sections 53, 55 & 57 of the NDPS Act have been flouted by the designated investigating officer. He has taken this Court to the oral testimony of PW -10, who investigated the case. PW -10, Sanjit Sen has stated unequivocally that: