Judgment :- Samapti Chatterjee, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of conviction passed in N.D.P.S. Case No.14 of 2004 and Trial No. NDPS 59 of 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court), 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri on 7th December, 2007 holding the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S Act and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 12 (twelve) years each and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh), in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years each. 2. Put in a short frame, the prosecution case runs as under :- On 14.09.2004 at about 13.15 hours S.I B. Gajmere Officer in charge, N.J.P outpost under Bhaktinagar Police Station, District-Jalpaiguri lodged a written complaint with Bhaktinagar P.S. to the effect that on 14.09.2004 at about 13.15 hours he received an information that a huge quantity of Ganja was being made ready in the house of one Akhil Sarkar for disposal to various places. Accordingly, he along with other officers had been to the spot at around 13.55 hours. He cordoned the area and started searching. During course of search he found Akhil Sarkar and Ananda Biswas loading Ganja packets in a suit-case. Complainant also found one manual machine used for packing Ganja in their possession. Said Accused persons failed to produce any license in support of their possession of Ganja. S.I B. Gazmera informed over R.T. Message for presence of an Executive Magistrate and awaited till 17 .00 hours at the place of occurrence. Since Executive Magistrate did not turn up S.I B Gazmera seized 14 packets of Ganja weighing 24 kgs and one VIP suit-case and one Ganja packing machine from the possession of accused persons in presence of Sri Pradip Kr. Dutta, Circle Inspector, Sadar Circle and the accused persons were taken into custody with the said Ganja packets, suit-case and packing machine and lodged a written complaint with the Officer in charge Bhaktinagar P.S. On the above complaint Bhaktinagar P.S. Case No.339/2004 dated 14.09.2004 under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act was started and the accused persons were forwarded to Court and on usual investigation S.I. B. Mallick submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. Accordingly trial started and after completion of trial, the learned Judge convicted the appellants as aforesaid. 3. Accordingly trial started and after completion of trial, the learned Judge convicted the appellants as aforesaid. 3. P.W.1, was a Constable who deposed that on 14th September, 2004 he was posted at NJP out post. On that day at about 1 p.m. he along with Officer in charge of the police station had been to Baribhasa for conducting raid. On entering a house at Baribhasa the Officer in charge found two persons and some packets of contraband articles and directed the P.W.1 and others to detain the said two persons. The Magistrate did not arrive. Thereafter Barobabu came and took out the machine from a wooden structure and seized the machine in the presence of the witnesses (Mat. Exbt.I to XVI present in Court). P.W.1 and Niren Thapa were present outside the house and guarded the house. He further stated that Mat. Exbt. I to XVI do not bear his signature. 4. P.W.2, was the ASI of police attached to the Madarihat Police Station. On 16th September, 2004 he was posted at NJP out post as driver. After entering the said house P.W.2 along with others found two persons inside the house and also found 14 packets in different sizes and shapes containing Ganja and he also found one VIP suit-case there and a packing machine in the other room of the said house. Thereafter the Officer in charge called the Magistrate but the Magistrate did not turn up. Seizure was made in presence of CI Sadar. Thereafter Officer in charge took the seized articles along with the accused to the police station. P.W.2 identified the machine marked as Mat. Exbt. I to IV and the VIP suit-case containing 14 packages of the contraband articles. Labels with seals was also affixed on the materials along with signature of Officer in charge. P.W.2 further stated that there were 4 sample packets which did not bear any label and were also found torn. 5. P.W.3 was posted as C/1443 at N.J.P. outpost. He in his evidence stated that on 14th September, 2004 he acompanied with other officers went to the house of Akhil Sarkar at Ramkrishna Market at Baribhasa. There they found 14 packets of Ganja and a packing machine (Mat Exbt. XVI) and also found accused persons namely Ananda Biswas and Akhil Sarkar. P.W.3 was posted as C/1443 at N.J.P. outpost. He in his evidence stated that on 14th September, 2004 he acompanied with other officers went to the house of Akhil Sarkar at Ramkrishna Market at Baribhasa. There they found 14 packets of Ganja and a packing machine (Mat Exbt. XVI) and also found accused persons namely Ananda Biswas and Akhil Sarkar. He further stated that from the house of Akhil Sarkar the said articles were seized by the Officer in charge. He also identified 14 packets of Ganja (Mat. Exbt. I to XIV) and the said VIP suit-case (Mat. Exbt. XV) and packing machine. 6. P.W.4 was a Home Guard. He in his evidence stated that on 14th September, 2004 at about 13.15 hours he along with Officer in charge and other staff had been to the house of Akhil Sarkar at Baribhasa. On entering the house he along with others found two accused persons namely Akhil Sarkar and Ananda Biswas were packing Ganjas. He further stated that in presence of Circle Inspector some articles were seized. There were 14 packets and a packing machine and an iron jug (Mat. Exbt. I to XVI). He said he did not see any Title Deed about the ownership of Akhil Sarkar of the said house. 7. P.W.5 was a Constable. He stated in his evidence that on 14th September, 2014 he was posted at NJP outpost. On that day at about 13.15 hours he along with Officer in charge and other staff went to the house of Akhil Sarkar and found Akhil Sarkar and Ananda Biswas there. He further stated that they also found 4 big packets and 10 small packets containing ganja and also a packing machine there. They waited there for Magistrate but Magistrate did not turn up. After arrival of CI the Officer in charge seized the said articles (Mat. Exbt. I to XVI) in presence of Circle Inspector. He further deposed that they did not see the Title Deed of the house. 8. P.W.6 was ASI. In his evidence he stated that on 14th September, 2004 at about 13.15 hours he along with Officer in charge and other staff went to the house of Akhil Sarkar at Baribhasa and found two accused persons were packing packets of Ganja in the suit-case. They guarded the said house and waited for the Magistrate to come but Magistrate did not turn up. They guarded the said house and waited for the Magistrate to come but Magistrate did not turn up. Thereafter Ganja was seized in presence of CI Pradip Dutta. There were 14 packets and the said packets were seized along with a VIP suit-case. He further deposed that 10 packets were of 2 kgs each ganja and 4 packets were of 4 kgs each. Officer in charge took the samples and prepared the sample packets after taking samples Ganja from the said 14 packets. Said seizure was made in presence of local witnesses namely Jogeswar Rao and another. Signatures of the accused persons and the witnesses were taken on the labels and the same were affixed on the said packets. Officer in charge also seized one packing machine with an iron jug. 9. P.W.7 was an independent witness. He deposed that he had been at the house of Ananda Biswas and found 14 packets of Ganja. He further stated that police officer took out those packets of Ganja and the machine and requested him to sign on a paper and accordingly he signed the said paper in English. He further deposed that he came to learn that one Akhil Sarkar was the nephew of Ananda Biswas. He also stated that the distance of his house from the place of occurrence was about half km. After arriving at the spot he found many local people along with villagers were present there. He further stated that he did not open any packet to ascertain whether Ganja was there or not. As per direction of the police officer he signed on the blank paper. About 30 to 40 signatures were made by him in blank papers. Accused Ananda had a betel shop inside the Ramkrishna Mini Market. 10. P.W.8 was the Constable. He deposed that on 14th September, 2004 he along with Officer in charge and other officers of NJP out post went to Akhil Sarkar’s house at Baribhasa. After arriving there Officer in charge directed P.W.8 and other to remain there and to guard 14 packets of Ganja including a VIP suitcase and some iron articles including two accused persons till arrival of the Magistrate but Magistrate did not arrive and in presence of Circle Inspector Pradip Dutta, Officer in charge seized the articles. 11. After arriving there Officer in charge directed P.W.8 and other to remain there and to guard 14 packets of Ganja including a VIP suitcase and some iron articles including two accused persons till arrival of the Magistrate but Magistrate did not arrive and in presence of Circle Inspector Pradip Dutta, Officer in charge seized the articles. 11. P.W.9, an independent witness who was declared hostile by the prosecution deposed that Akhil Sarkar is dealing with dust spices by packing the same in his house. Ananda Biswas is the maternal uncle of Akhil Sarkar. Ananda Biswas had his separate residence. 12. P.W.10 was the Officer in charge, NJP outpost. In his evidence stated that on 14th September, 2004 he received a source information that some Ganja were being packed in the house of Akhil Sarkar at Baribhasa. He recorded the same vide GD Entry No.467 dated 14th September, 2004. Thereafter he along with SI Murmu, Gopal Thapa, Sunil Sugurng, Jogesh Roy, Subir Sen, Niren Thapa and Sisir Sinha went to the house of accused Akhil Sarkar. There he surrounded the said house with his force and started searching the house. He found number of packets scattered in a room and two accused persons in the room. They were packing the Ganjas. He also found one packing machine. They could not produce any license or valid authority for possessing the said contraband articles like Ganja. He sent message through RI to Bhaktinagar Police Station for requisition of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Up to 5 p.m. no one turned up except CI P.K. Dutta. He seized those contraband articles in presence of CI P.K. Dutta and two local witnesses and accused Ananda Biswas signed on the said seizure list, while accused Akhil Sarkar signed in Bengali in the said seizure list also. He prepared the labels of the seized articles on the spot. He took 14 packets of samples from each of the said 14 packets of Ganjas. He further deposed that he knew the handwriting and signature of said CI P.K. Dutta and identified his signature, signature of Ananda Biswas (Exbt.9/2) and signature of Akhil Sarkar (Exbt.9/3) and seized articles (Mat. Exbt. I to XVI). He handed over the accused persons, contraband articles including the containers, seizure list and the petition of complaint to Sri A. Dasgupta, the Officer in charge of police station. Exbt. I to XVI). He handed over the accused persons, contraband articles including the containers, seizure list and the petition of complaint to Sri A. Dasgupta, the Officer in charge of police station. He identified the signature of Sri A. Dasgupta (Exbt. 11/1). Formal FIR prepared by said A. Dasgupta (Exbt.12). He further stated that he did not handover any document to show that the requisition was made for the arrival of Deputy Magistrate. He further deposed that there was no indication of taking sample in Malkhana for registration. 13. P.W.11 was D.I who stated in his evidence that on 14th September, 2004 he was posted at NJP outpost under Bhaktinagar P.S. as S.I. He identified the formal FIR (Exbt-12) on the basis of which Bhaktinagar P.S. Case No.339 of 2004 dated 14.09.2004 under Section 20 of the NDPS Act was initiated and he was entrusted for holding investigation by the Officer in charge. He examined the complainant. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also collected the FSL report (Exbt.20). 14. On the above facts evidence Mr. Himangshu De, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not complied with as nothing was reduced in writing and thereafter produced the same before the Court. 15. Mr. De further contended that neither Magistrate nor the Gazetted Officer came to the place of occurrence. Charge says 2 kgs each in 10 packets and 1 kgs each in 4 packets. But P.W.6 deposed that the 10 packets of 2 kgs each and 4 packets of 4 kgs each which comes to 36 kgs. But FIR shows only 24 kgs. 16. He further submitted that no superior officer was informed; no percentage of contraband was taken as per E. Michel Case. 17. Mr. De further contended that house owner was not examined. In his submission prosecution case is full of discrepancies and contradictions, therefore appeal should be allowed. 18. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the State contended that GD No.467 was outpost GD and main GD was 693 which was written in police station wherefrom the case was initiated. 19. Mr. Gupta further contended that the prosecution wholly complied Section 42 (I) and 42(II) of NDPS Act. In support of his contention he relied on Exbts.14, 15 and 19. In respect of search and seizure Mr. 19. Mr. Gupta further contended that the prosecution wholly complied Section 42 (I) and 42(II) of NDPS Act. In support of his contention he relied on Exbts.14, 15 and 19. In respect of search and seizure Mr. Gupta contended that P.W.1 to P.W.6 all were police personnel and they deposed to prove the Mat. Exbts. 20. Mr. Gupta further urged that if independent witnesses turned hostile that will not vitiate the prosecution’s case on the ground that the accused persons were falsely implicated. In support of his contention Mr. Gupta relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in 2011 AIR (SCW) 6621 (Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab) and also relied on 2013 (3) RLW 1870 (Ram Swaroop vs. State (Govt. NCT) of Delhi). 21. On a close and critical analysis of the evidence both oral as well as documentary with meticulous care we find that it is evident from the testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 that the accused persons were found at the house of Akhil Sarkar in Baribhasa with 24 kgs of Ganjas in 14 packets with one packing machine and one VIP suit-case which corroborated with the formal FIR as well as chemical analysis report. We also cannot ignore the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surjit Singh’s case (Supra) and Ram Swaroop’s case (Supra). Even if independent witnesses do not join it cannot be held that the accused was falsely implicated. In the present case we find that charges against the accused persons were proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution on the basis of the testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.6. We also find that there was nothing to show by which the testimonies of the witnesses could be treated as untrustworthy. On the other hand we find that it is absolutely unimpeachable. 22. We also find that in presence of Circle Inspector the Officer made the seizure. Therefore, the provision of Section 42 (II) of the NDPS Act had been strictly complied with in the present case. 23. Before parting with the decision we cannot resist but to observe that Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances is now become a curse to the society and it is leading the generation towards destruction. Therefore, manufacturing, possessing, transporting, packaging and trading etc of such dangerous substance must be prevented at any cost. 23. Before parting with the decision we cannot resist but to observe that Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances is now become a curse to the society and it is leading the generation towards destruction. Therefore, manufacturing, possessing, transporting, packaging and trading etc of such dangerous substance must be prevented at any cost. The punishment given to the appellants therefore does not deserve any re-consideration. So, from the foregoing discussions it is clear that no interference in the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is called for in the present appeal. 24. The appeal is, therefore dismissed on contest. 25. The Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed in Trial No. N.D.P.S. 59 of 2004 arising out of N.D.P.S. Case No. 14 of 2004 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court) 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri on 07.12.2007 is hereby affirmed. 26. Lower Court Record be sent to the Trial Court. 27. Urgent certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for be supplied to the learned Advocates of both the parties upon compliance of all formalities.