YOGENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.9.2011 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mahasamund in Special Criminal Case No. 05/2011, convicting the accused/appellant under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act & Sec. 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo RI for 12 years, to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000.00 and RI for 4 years, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 with default stipulations respectively.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that on 22.12.2010 at about 9 am vehicle of the appellant Qualis bearing registration No. MP 20 HA 5675 was intercepted by PW-1 Eklavya Bais, Police Constable. In the said vehicle, which was coming from Saraipali, three persons including the appellant were found travelling. As soon as the vehicle was stopped, two persons sitting in the vehicle fled from the spot, however, the appellant was detained. Upon search being made, three bags containing contraband - ganja were found in the vehicle. PW-1 gave information to ASI Kapishwar Pushpkar (PW-14) over phone, the same was accordingly entered in Rojnamchana (Ex.P/6) on 22.12.2010 at 9.40 am and the SDOP was also intimated about the same. After preparing panchanama of the notice the police party proceeded for the place of incident. Notices for search of the vehicle were given to the appellant vide Exs .P/17 & P/18 at 10.45 am and 10.50 am respectively, to which the appellant consented for search of the vehicle by PW-14. Thereafter vide Ex.P/19 the police officers gave their personal search at 11.20 am. Vide Ex.P/20 upon search of the vehicle being made at 11.45 am, total 46 packets containing ganja like substance kept in three plastic bags as also one country made pistol were seized. This apart, one purse containing Rs.750.00, documents of the vehicle and cell phones were also seized. At 12.05 pm the contraband was examined by smelling and burning the same and was found to be ganja vide Ex.P/21. Thereafter, homogenization of the contraband contained in three different bags was done vide Ex.P/22 at 12.30 pm. Physical verification of the electronic weighing machine was done vide Ex.P/2 at 12.25 pm and thereafter, at 13.05 hours on weighment of the contraband being done, it was found to be 46.850 kg vide Ex.P/3. Out of the said contraband, three samples, each of 50 gm, were drawn at 14:30 hours and sealed vide Ex.P/4. As per Ex.P/23 at 15:30 hours, the contraband including three samples of 50 gm each, country made pistol, documents of the vehicle, purse and two cell phones of the appellant were seized. Dehati Nalishi was recorded at 16:30 hours vide Ex.P/28, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/26 and after reaching police station vide Ex.P/11 & P/12 all the seized articles except the vehicle were deposited in Malkhana. The appellant was arrested at 19:30 hours vide Ex.P/24. FIR was registered against the appellant under Sec. 20(b) of NDPS Act and 25 of the Arms Act vide Ex.P/29 at 18:00 hours. Information regarding arrest of the appellant was given to his parents through SHO, Gohalpur, Jabalpur vide Ex.P/30. Vide Ex.P/7 information of the entire proceedings was passed on to SDOP and three samples drawn were sent to FSL vide Ex.P/31 on 23.12.2010 along with copy of FIR, seizure memo, sample panchanama and specimen seal which were received by FSL on 24.12.2010 vide Ex.P/13. The country made pistol was sent to armourer and report of the armourer is Ex.P/14 that the country made pistol was found in working condition. Vide Ex.P/5 a report was received from FSL on 17.3.2011 confirming the contraband to be ganja. After obtaining consent vide Ex.P/15 from the District Magistrate, Mahasamund in relation to Arms Act, charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Sec. 20(b) of NDPS Act and Sec. 25 of the Arms Act.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Sec. 313 of Crimial P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.