Crl.A. 194/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.6.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,Kamrup in Sessions ( Spl) Case No. 177(K)/2001. 2. By this impugned judgment Md Kuddus Ali has been convicted U/S 17( c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs . 1( one ) Lakh in default, further R.I for 3( three ) years. 3. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, the appellant has pref erred this appeal . 4. I have heard Shri D.C.Kath Hazarika and Shri B.S.Sinha, learned Addl.P.P ,Assam. Also perused the impugned judgment and records. 5. The prosecution case is that on 29.4.2001 at about 9/10 p.m. the police constables of Rangia GRPS who were on duty at Platform Nos.1,2 and 3 detained three persons on Platform No.2 who were carrying narcotic substance. Accordingly , the police constables called the Head Constable namely, Shri Gokul Sarma, who in turn informed the Officer In-charge, Rangia GRPS. Thereafter, the S.I, Anowar Hussain reached the spot and seized the contraband drugs. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the 3 (three ) accused persons. However, aft er trial only the appellant has been convicted and the other 2( two ) accused pe rsons namely, Md. After Ali and Narayan Kumar were acquitted. 6. Since the case is destined for remand, I am not inclined to discuss the merits and demerits of the prosecution case as well as the law point involved in this appeal. 7. As mentioned earlier, three police constables of Rangia GRPS namely, Mo znur Ali, Prafulla Das and Noor Ali were also on duty at Platform No.1,2 and 3 a long with P.W-1 Gokul Sarma. Out of the aforesaid 4 ( four ) constables only Hea d constables Gokul Sarma was examined as prosecution witness (P.W-1). As I coul d gather from the record, the offence was initially detected by the Constable M oznur Ali at platform No.2, however, the said constable was neither cited as a seizure witness nor summoned as a witness. In my considered opinion, examinatio n of the aforesaid police constable is also necessary to ascertain the time of s eizure and other aspects. 8. Besides this, the seizure memo discloses that the contraband was seized in presence of one Chatu Singh, Santosh Singh and one Monowar Hussain. However, the prosecution did not examine the seizure witness Santoh Singh. In my consid ered opinion examination of Santosh Singh is also necessary. 9. It is true that Chatu Singh has been examined as P.W-4.In his deposition the said seizure witness has deposed that the seizure/ recovery was made at 9.0 0 A.M, whereas as per other prosecution witnesses the recovery was made at 9.00 p,m. Unfortunately neither the public Prosecutor nor the court made any endeavo ur to clarify the time of seizure. Hence, further examination of P.W.4 is also n ecessary. 10. For the foregoing deficiencies in the trial , the case is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge,Kamrup,Guwahati with a direction to re-summon PW-4 and also take steps to record the evidence of police constables, who were depu ted at Rangia Rly.station at the relevant time. After recording such additional evidence, fresh judgment be passed. Needless to say that fresh statement U/S 31 3 Cr.P.C. shall also be recorded and accused shall also be given opportunity to cross examine witnesses to give defence evidence. 11. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal stands disposed of. 12. The Registry is directed to send the L.C.R. to the trial court with a co py of the judgment.