RASIKRAJ Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter is heard through video conferencing.

(2.) This appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19/09/2003 passed by Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act) Raipur in Special Criminal Case No. 47/2002; whereby the appellant Rasikraj @ Rasiko stands convicted and sentenced as under:-

(3.) Case of the prosecution in brief is that on receiving secret information on 04/06/2002 that the appellant was carrying Ganja and villagers of village Mama-Bhanja have caught hold of the appellant alongwith Ganja, Inspector L.K. Gayakwad prepared secret information Panchnama vide Ex. P-10, forwarded the same to Dy. Superintendent of Police and recorded it in the Rojnamchasanha. He also prepared the Panchnama Ex. P-4 for search without warrant. Alongwith witnesses he proceeded for the indicated place where the appellant was caught hold by villagers at village Mama-Bhanja in Manas Bhawan with bag (Ataichi). The appellant was informed about his legal rights of being searched by Gazetted Officer or Magistrate or the Police vide Ex. P-1. After consent being given by the appellant vide Ex. P-2, his personal search was made vide Ex. P-4 and Ganja was seized from the bag carried by the appellant vide Ex. P-5. On weighment being done, the Ganja was found 6.500 Kg out of which 2 samples of 50 grams each were drawn and sealed. Sample Panchnama is Ex. P-6 and the seizure memo is Ex. P-7. The appellant was arrested vide Ex. P-8 and the FIR vide Ex. P-14 was registered. Seized article were deposited in Malkhana. Information regarding seizure of Ganja from the appellant and his arrest was sent to SDOP vide Ex. P-15. The samples were sent for chemical examination through Superintendent of Police Mahasamund vide Ex. P-16. As per FSL report the sample was found to be Ganja vide Ex. P-19. After recording the statements of the witnesses and completing the formalities of the investigation, charge sheet under section 20(b) of the NDPS was filed against the accused appellant.