Various companytentions regarding numberobservance of mandatory requirements of different provisions of the NDPS Act were raised before the trial Court but it found numbersubstance in them and held that all those provisions were companyplied with in this case.
The trial Court also found that the prosecution evidence companyld safely be relied upon eventhough there was some inconsistency in the evidence regarding the time at which the Panch witnesses were called.
According to the Panch witnesses they were called thereafter.
The Panchnama clearly states that the Panchas were called after P.S.I. Chavda had stopped the appellants while they were proceeding on the scooter on the road near Nursing Takri.
P.S.I. Chavda and the companystable accompanying him had stated before the Court that the Panch witnesses were called before they had stopped the appellants.
