SANTOSH SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 07.10.2001 at about 8:25 PM the Station House Officer of Arang Police Station namely Ajeet Patle (PW-6) received a secret information regarding the appellant carrying Ganja from Orissa to Benedih and after entering the same in the Roznamcha Sanha (Ex.P-14) and also intimating the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police under Ex.P-15 he went to the spot along with his staff members and after waiting for sometime when the accused/appellant came there on his bicycle on which a gunny bag containing Ganja was kept, he stopped him and informed about being in receipt of the secret information regarding Ganja being possessed by him. He also apprised him of his legal rights of being searched by a gazetted officer but he gave the consent of being searched by him only. The police people including PW-6 also gave their personal search to the accused/appellant as per the requirement of law. Due to paucity of time and being in the midst of apprehension regarding the contraband being disposed of otherwise or fleeing away of the accused, PW-6 drew a Panchnama for effecting the search without even obtaining a warrant to this effect vide Ex.P-16. Thereafter, from the nearby shop of one Gajadhar Sinha the weighing instruments were called and on weighment being done the contraband was found to be 6 kg and 500 grams. Subsequently, a notice of search was given to the accused vide Ex.P-3 and while executing the search proceedings, the contraband kept on the bicycle of the accused was recovered, samples of 30 gram each were taken out, the remaining contraband was duly sealed, the samples were sent to the laboratory for chemical examination which as per the examination report (Ex.P-21) was confirmed to be Ganja. Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P-18) was reduced to writing on the spot and after returning to the police station, FIR (Ex.P-20) was registered on the basis of seizure made from the accused/appellant, for the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. After investigation challan was filed under the same section followed by framing of charge accordingly.

(2.) Learned Court below by its judgment dated 18.03.2002 passed in Special Criminal Case No.49/2001 held the accused/appellant guilty under Section 20 (B) (1) read with Section 8 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for two and half years with fine of Rs.2500, plus default stipulation. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the findings recorded by the Court below are contrary to the evidence of the witnesses and therefore, liable to be set aside. She submits that though the independent witnesses to the case of the prosecution namely Ramadhar (PW-2) and Shesh Kumar Sahu (PW-3) have not supported the case of the prosecution yet the Court below has ignored the same and erroneously convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as described above. According to her, even the legal requirements supposed to be fulfilled for holding the accused guilty, have not been adhered to by the prosecution but the Court below has not considered the same while passing the judgment impugned.