BHUNESH SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against judgment dated 4th June, 2007 passed by special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act, 1985'), Dhamtari in Special Case No. 10/2007. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Ful Singh, Sunder Nayak, Deepak Devdas, Bhunesh Sahu 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 simple imprisonment for 2 years.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under : Ashok Kumar Dwivedi (P.W. 8) was posed as Sub -Inspector in Traffic Branch, Dhamtari on 9 -3 -2005. On 9 -3 -2005, he received information from the mukhbir that appellant Fulsingh was bringing ganja in maruti van bearing registration No. C.G. 05 A 4486 along with his friends. He recorded mukbir suchana panchanama (Ex. P/15) and also entered in rojnamcha sanha (Ex.P/19). He transmitted the same information to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari. Thereafter he proceeded towards old bus stand, Dhamtari and reached there that where one Sheikh Farook (P.W. 2) and Eliyas (P.W. 1) met him. He informed them regarding mukhbir suchana. Thereafter he proceeded towards village Soram along with Sheikh Farook (P.W. 2) and Eliyas (P.W. 1) and when they reached near canal (nahar), the maruti van bearing registration No. C.G. 05A 4486 came there. One of the appellants was driving the vehicle and other appellants were sitting inside the van. On being inquired, the appellants told their names. The appellants were informed about their right under Section 50 of the Act, 1985 vide Ex. P/2, Ex.P/2A, Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4. Consent of the appellants were recorded in Ex. P/2, Ex.P/2A, Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4 itself. Thereafter, Sub -Inspector Ashok Dwivedi (P.W. 8) searched the maruti van bearing registration No. C.G. 05A 4486. In the said maruti van, 7 jute bora (bags) were found. Identification of the recovered article was conducted vide Ex. P/6. After physical verification, it was found that the recovered article was Ganja. Ganja was weighed on the spot and it was found that out of 7 bags, (1) one white plastic bag had contained 11.650 kg. (2) one white colour fertilizer bag (bori) had contained 4.570 kg. (3) one white colour fertilizer bag had contained 10.260 kg. (4) one white colour plastic bag had contained 11.440 kg. (5) one white colour plastic bag had contained 17.060 kg. (6) one white colour plastic bag had contained 6.580 kg. and (7) one white colour plastic bag had contained 8.430 kg. of ganja. Total 69.990 kg. of ganja were recovered from the maruti van. 14 samples were prepared. The recovered ganja and its samples were seized vide Ex. P/7. the appellants were arrested on the spot vide Ex. P/8 to Ex.P/11 and panchnama proceeding was prepared vide Ex. P/13. Registration and insurance papers of maruti van bearing registration No. C.G. 05A 4486 were seized from Smt. Yashoda Malviaya vide Ex. P/17. Dehati nalishi (Ex.P/21) was prepared. Thereafter, Sub -Inspector Ashok Kumar Dwivedi (P.W. 8) came back to Police Station Kotwali, Dhamtari and to that effect rojnamcha sanha No. 806 was recorded and he handed over the property and appellants to Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Dhamtari and a regular First Information Report (FIR) No. 118/2005 was recorded for offence under Section 20(b) of the Act, 1985 vide Ex.P/23. The seized property were handed over to Malkhana Moharrir for their safe custody. The samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. A report (Ex. P/25) was received therefrom, in which, the test of ganja was found positive in all the 14 samples. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Special Judge under the Act, 1985. Dhamtari, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

(3.) ON the contrary, Shri Mahesh Mishra and Shri A. K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyers 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.