Reliable official testimony justifies NDPS conviction notwithstanding hostile independent witnesses or minor evidentiary contradictions.

On April 3, 2017, a police party conducting a naka near Dunali observed the accused carrying a backpack.

Upon seeing the police, the accused attempted to flee, fell, and was apprehended.

A search of the bag revealed 800 grams of charas.

The police sealed the contraband with seal ‘SB’, and the independent witness, Ramesh Kumar (PW-1), signed the seizure memo and seal samples.

The case property was subsequently resealed with seal ‘BH’ by the SHO and sent to SFSL, Junga.

During the trial, PW-1 turned hostile, claiming he was forced to sign blank papers.

The learned Special Judge, Chamba, convicted the accused on July 1, 2022, under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, sentencing him to eight years of rigorous imprisonment and a ₹80,000 fine.

The accused appealed on grounds of contradictions in official testimonies and non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.

1. Whether the hostile testimony of an independent witness and minor contradictions in the statements of official witnesses are sufficient to discard the prosecution's case

2. Whether the failure of the Magistrate to open the parcel and draw samples during inventory certification constitutes a fatal violation of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act

3. Whether the chain of custody was established despite minor discrepancies in the description of the case property

Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act regarding possession of intermediate quantities of contraband

Section 155(3) of the Indian Evidence Act to determine that a witness's credit is impeached by inconsistent statements

Police are not obligated to join independent witnesses during chance recoveries while on patrolling duty [Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab]

Section 52-A compliance is not mandatory if the entire bulk of the contraband is sent for analysis rather than just samples [Narayan Singh v. State of H.P.]

The Court found that although PW-1 turned hostile, his admission of signatures on the documents and his presence in photographs at the scene corroborated the prosecution's version under the principle in Raveen Kumar v. State of H.P.

The Court dismissed contradictions regarding the source of light (vehicle headlights vs. mega light) and the type of camera used as minor discrepancies attributable to the fading of human memory over the four years between the incident and the testimony.

The Court reasoned that since the Investigating Officer sent the entire 800 grams to the SFSL, the requirement for a Magistrate to draw representative samples was inapplicable; the bulk itself served as primary evidence.

The integrity of the case property was confirmed by the SFSL report, which noted that the seals were intact upon arrival, thereby negating any claim of tampering.

The Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent official testimonies and a secured chain of custody.

The sentence of eight years of rigorous imprisonment and an ₹80,000 fine was deemed proportionate to the recovery of 800 grams of charas.

The Trial Court records were ordered to be returned immediately.