Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 169 OF 1995 ***** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 2.8.1995 passed in Special Case No. 1 of 1991 by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Purnia. ***** JAGIR SINGH S/O LATE SAJJAN SINGH R/O MAHALKALAN, P.S.- MAHAL KALAN, DISTRICT- SANGROOR. ……..….. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ****** For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Singh Adv. For the State : Mr. Binay Kr. Pandey (C.G.C.) ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ******* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant has been convicted under Section 20 (b) (i) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and fine of Rs. 2500/- in default of sentence for a further 1 year passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Purnia passed in Special Case No. 1 of 1991 by the judgment dated 2.8.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.2.1991 on a confidential information that a truck was intercepted and from beneath the tarpaulin 1655 Kg. of ganja was found concealed beneath whereas waste wooden rollers loaded. The occupants of the truck were taken into custody out of which the appellant was alleged to be the Khalasi. 2 3. The prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 & 2 were declared hostile, P.W. 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12 & 13 are tendered, P.W. 3, 4, 7, 9 are official witnesses and members of the raiding party. 4. It appears that the appellant had given confessional statement before the customs department in which he had incriminated himself. From the evidence of P.W. 3, 4, 7 and 9 who are the members of the raiding party I find they have convincingly testified that the truck on which the appellant was a Khalasi was intercepted by them and from the said truck 1655 Kg. ganja was found. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the mandatory provision of Section 52 and 55 of the N.D.P.C. Act, had not been followed and in absence of the same the appellant deserves to be acquitted. In support he has placed reliance on a decision reported in 2002 (1) P.L.J.R. 75 (H.C.) wherein relying on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (2000) 1 SCC 318, the court also held that the Custom Department had not complied with the provisions of Section 55 N.D.P.S. Act by keeping the ‘ganja’ in the godown instead of it being in police custody which was bad in law. He has also placed reliance on a case reported in 2011 (1) P.L.J.R. 195 wherein the appellants were acquitted because there was no evidence as to where the seized ‘ganja’ was kept and as to whether any sampling was done. However, in my considered view since Section 53 N.D.P.S. Act provides for investing the powers of the officer-in-charge to the customs officials Section 55 would have no application in the case 3 and merely because the alleged ganja was not kept in safe custody of the police, the present case would not fail on this account. 6. Further submission that the inventory list has not been prepared by the Investigating Agency is without any basis since it appears from the cross-examination of P.W. 3 that the appellant had been forwarded to the Magistrate along with the inventory list immediately, which is further borne out from exhibit-5. Moreover, Exhibit-1 is seizure list which clearly mentions articles which had been recovered. 7. Under the circumstances finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. Patna High Court, (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna Dated the 28th April, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.