ANJALI TIWARI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 20-11-2007 passed by Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act, 1985'), Bilaspur in Special Case No. 9/2007. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellants Anjani Tiwari and Ashok Kumar have been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

(2.) Shri Suresh Verma and Shri Ajay Barik, learned counsel for their respective appellant argued that there was no compliance of provisions of Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the Act, 1985. They further argued that the secret information was not sent to Superior Officer. They further argued that there is nothing on record to show that the bags (bora/bori) were containing Ganja and the samples taken out from the bags were sealed and specimen of seal was prepared. The seizure from the appellants were not in accordance with law. The conscious possession was not proved by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that there is material contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Ashish Vashnik (PW-6) deposed that he recovered 19 bags and prepared 19 samples. Neeraj Dubey (PW-4) did not support the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the seized articles were Ganja. They further argued that the recovered articles were not sealed by the Station House Officer before handing it over to Malkhana Moharrir. The samples were sent to FSL, Raipur belatedly and there is no explanation therefor. Hence, the appellants deserve acquittal.

(3.) On the contrary, Shri T. Nande, learned Panel Lawyer appearing 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.