JAIPRAKASH PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals arise out of a common judgment, therefore, they are decided together.

(2.) The appeals are directed against the judgment dated 15.2.2017 passed by the Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act of 1985'), Jashpur in Special Criminal Case No.4 of 2016, whereby the Appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:

(3.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 24.11.2015, Sub-Inspector Ajay Sahu (PW11), Assistant Sub-Inspector Karmusai Paikra (PW10) and other Constables of Police Station Tapkara were on night patrolling duty. They were checking vehicles. Sub-Inspector Ajay Sahu (PW11) received a secret information that two persons were coming with contraband article Ganja in a Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No.UP 45 N 3434 from Lavakera to Tapkara. On the basis of the information, he called two witnesses namely, Jagdish Prasad (PW2) and Jermious Lakda (PW3) by giving them notice (Ex.P5). He made them aware of the information and prepared a Mukhbir Suchna Panchnama (Ex.P6). He prepared a Panchnama (Ex.P7) about non-receiving of a search warrant and thereafter in compliance with Section 42 of the Act of 1985 he forwarded the information to the S.D.O. (Police), Kunkuri vide Ex.P41. Thereafter, he reached the spot. After sometime, the said Swift Car reached the spot. He stopped the car. On the driving seat of the car, Appellant Jaiprakash was sitting and adjacent to him Appellant Abdul was sitting. In compliance with Section 50 of the Act of 1985, he gave them notices (Ex.P8 and P9) for their search. He obtained their consent vide Ex.P42 and P43. They consented to be searched by him (Sub-Inspector Ajay Sahu). He also gave his and his staff's search to the Appellants. He made personal search of the Appellants vide Ex.P11 and P12 in which he did not find anything. Thereafter, he searched the car in which he found total 23 packets of Ganja from the rear seat of the car which he recovered from Appellant Jaiprakash vide Ex.P13. From the dikki of the car he found total 24 packets of Ganja which he recovered from Appellant Abdul vide Ex.P14. He identified the recovered articles and prepared identification panchnama thereof (Ex.P15 and P16) He mixed the recovered Ganja and thereafter prepared a panchnama thereof (Ex.P17 and P18). He called a weighing article and after physical verification thereof he prepared a panchnama thereof (Ex.P19). On weighing the 23 packets which were recovered from the rear seat of the car, they were found to be of total 23.200 Kgs. and on weighing the 24 packets which were recovered from the dikki of the car, they were found to be of total 24.400 Kgs. He prepared weight panchnama (Ex.P20 and P21). 1 sample packet of 500 Gms. was prepared from the 23 packets which were recovered from the rear seat of the car and 1 sample packet of 500 Gms. was also prepared from the 24 packets which were recovered from the dikki of the car and after affixing seal on both the sample packets, he prepared a specimen seal panchnama (Ex.P23). He made seizure of one sample packet of 500 Gms. and of remaining Ganja from Appellant Jaiprakash vide Ex.P24 and also made seizure of the other sample packet of 500 Gms. and of remaining Ganja from Appellant Abdul vide Ex.P25. He recorded Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P46) on the spot. He recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He arrested the Appellants. After return to the police station, he registered First Information Report (Ex.P48). He deposited the seized sample packets and the remaining Ganja in Malkhana and obtained acknowledgment thereof (Ex.P49). Entries of deposit of the articles were made in the Malkhana Register (Ex.P64). Information of the complete action taken was sent to the S.D.O. (Police) vide Ex.P33. The sample packets were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Ex.P52 for chemical examination. Report of the Chemical Examiner is Ex.P53 which is positive. A charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. Since the car in question was owned by absconded accused Sandeep Kumar Verma, the charge-sheet was filed declaring him as an absconded accused. Charges were framed.