Conviction under NDPS Act valid solely on credible testimony of official witnesses despite independent witnesses turning hostile.

On 29.12.1999, acting on telephonic information, police officials searched a fish stall belonging to the appellants at Brajrajnagar fish market

In the presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Gazetted Officer), a polythene packet containing 1.5 kilograms of ganja was recovered

While official witnesses (P.Ws. 5, 7, 9, 11) testified to the recovery and procedural compliance, several independent witnesses (P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 12) turned hostile, denying knowledge of the seizure or alleging they were forced to sign blank papers at the police station

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act, sentencing them to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 10,000

The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of non-corroboration by independent witnesses and non-compliance with Sections 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act

1. Whether the uncorroborated testimony of official witnesses is sufficient for conviction when independent witnesses turn hostile

2. Whether the mandatory procedural requirements of the NDPS Act regarding search, seizure, and safe custody were complied with

3. Whether the sentence of the appellants should be modified considering the duration of litigation and the quantity of the contraband

The court applied Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which penalizes the illegal possession of cannabis

The court relied on the established legal principle that the testimony of official witnesses/police officers cannot be discarded or viewed with suspicion solely because it lacks independent corroboration, provided the evidence is consistent and cogent

It further considered Sections 55 (safe custody of seized articles) and 57 (report of seizure) to ensure procedural integrity

The Court observed that although independent witnesses (P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 12) turned hostile, they admitted to their signatures on the seizure reports

The Court found the testimonies of P.Ws. 5, 7, 9, and 11 to be "unshaken" and "consistent," noting no evidence of animosity towards the accused that would lead to false implication

The Court noted that in modern society, witnesses often turn hostile out of fear or apathy, but this does not invalidate the prosecution's case if official records like the Malkhana Register (Ext. 12) and Station Diary entries (Ext. 15) prove the chain of custody and procedural compliance

The Court confirmed that sampling and sealing were done correctly in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, satisfying the rigors of the NDPS Act

The substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone (approximately 2 months and 26 days), while the fine was increased from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 25,000 each, with a default sentence of two months R.I. The appeal was partly allowed