KRISHNA BALA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 29th April, 2008 passed by Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act, 1985'), Rajnandgaon in Special Case No. 10/ 2007. By the impugned judgment, appellants Krishna Bala, Ranjit Chaudhary, Probhash, Nakul Vishwas and Ashutosh have been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R. I. for 3 months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under :

(3.) Shri Praful N. Bharat and Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the respective appellants argued that there was no compliance of provisions of Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the Act, 1985. They further argued that there are material contradictions in Ex. P/13 and further argued that there are material contradictions in Ex. P/13 and Ex. P/41. In Ex. P/13, it is mentioned that Manilal Maheshwari, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-9) received secret information from the mukhbir that some persons coming from Orissa by a truck and going towards Kawardha and bringing ganja in the truck. In Ex. P/41, the name of appellant Ranjit Chaudhary was mentioned. If secret information had been received by Manilal Maheshwari, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-9) and if he had prepared mukhbir suchna panchnama immediately then Ex. P/13 would have also contained the name of appellant Ranjit Chaudhari. It appears that he had not complied the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, 1985. They further argued that the ganja was not sealed by the Station House Officer before handing it over to Malkhana, the samples were sent to FSL, Raipur belatedly. There is no explanation therefor. Therefore, there is possibility of tampering of the samples. The investigating officer did not prepare seal panchnama and specimen seal was not affixed on the seizure memo and other requisite documents. The search of the appellants was not conducted according to the provisions of the Act, 1985. Hence, the appellants deserve to acquittal.