While it is true, that it is a case wherein the contraband recovered is 21 kg opium milk, which is much higher than commercial quantity but then the evidence which is tendered by the prosecution to substantiate recovery has many pitfalls and shortcomings. Although, it may not be possible for the Court to fully concur with the arguments of learned Senior Counsel that it is a case of false recovery but then a meaningful consideration of the statements of three witnesses, i.e., PW4 to PW6, has obviously created a grave suspicion in the mind of the Court about recovery of contraband. The NDPS Act, being a Special Act, which is enacted to curb devastating menace of drug trafficking, provides stringent punishments and therefore the Legislature has provided many safeguards to the accused persons against their false implications. Therefore, it is necessary for the prosecution to strictly adhere to the mandatory provisions and further ensure fair procedure during investigation free from any doubt or suspicion. The mobile location of Seizure Officer and the Constable accompanying him at the time of recovery proceedings was at a distance of 25 kms to 35 kms from the place of recovery, which in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be completely eschewed. Thus, reliance can be sufficiently placed on the order passed by the Court in Deshraj & Anr. (supra) for toning down rigor envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
