LIYAKAT KHAN Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 24-06-2004 passed by Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act, 1985'), Durg in Special Case No. 12/2003. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Liyakat Khan has been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 40,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under :--

(2.) Smt. Fouzia Mirza, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence led by the prosecution lacks requisite proof required to convict the appellant under Section 20 of the Act, 1985. The independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. She further argued that in the seizure memo (Ex. P-13), it is mentioned that samples were marked as A1, B1 and C1 and original packets were marked as A, B and C. In Malkhana register (Ex. P-16A), it is also mentioned that original Ganja was marked as A, B and C and samples were marked as A1, B1 and C1. According to the prosecution, the samples were sent to the FSL, Raipur, but in Ex. P-23, it is mentioned that A, B and C were sent to Raipur. This shows that the samples were not sent to the FSL, Raipur. In Memo (Ex. P-18) of the Superintendent of Police, it is mentioned that the samples were sent for chemical test, therefore, there is possibility of tampering of the samples. She further argued that the Investigating Officer did not prepare sealed panchnama and specimen of seal was not affixed on the seizure memo and other requisite documents. Hence, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. She placed reliance on Jugalkishore Vs. State of Punjab,2008 17 SCC 747, Union of India Vs. Balmukund and Ors., 2009 12 SCC 161, Ouseph Vs. State of Kerala, 2004 10 SCC 647, State of Rajasthan Vs. Bher Singh,2009 16 SCC 293 and Ramji and two Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2006 4 MPHT(Chh) 44.

(3.) On the contrary, Shri R.R. Sinha, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court.