KAMRUL HAQ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant -Kamrul Haq by the impugned judgment dated 10th September, 2004 has been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act) and by order dated 16th September, 2004 has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 however has been granted to the Appellant.

(2.) THIS appeal was adjourned repeatedly to await the decision of the Division Bench on the question, whether the percentage of THC in the seized material, i.e. Charas, was relevant or not. The Division Bench in Dilip v. State 2010 (4) JCC 169(Narcotic) has held that in the case of Charas percentage of THC is not relevant for deciding whether the quantity seized is commercial quantity or not. The Appellant during pendency of the appeal was released on bail vide order dated 22nd January, 2010.

(3.) AS far as search, seizure and the arrest of the Appellant are concerned, the prosecution has led evidence in form of statements of PW -2, ACP Parvez Ahmed, PW -3, Inspector R.K. Singh, PW -9, HC Virender Kumar and PW -11, SI Arun Kumar Choudhary. The said witnesses have proved the case of the prosecution with regard to the search, seizure and arrest of the Appellant. They have stated that in a bag carried by the Appellant, Charas weighing about 6 kgs. was seized and out of the said Charas one sample weighing 500 gms. was separated. The seized article as well as the sample was sealed with the seal of AKC and GCD. Learned Counsel for the Appellant initially had urged that there is discrepancy in the statement of PW -9, HC Virender Kumar and PW -11, SI Arun Kumar Choudhary in respect of how the alleged Charas was weighed. It was pointed out that PW -9, HC Virender Kumar had stated that the alleged Charas was weighed with the help of an Electronic Scale, whereas the PW -11, SI Arun Kumar Choudhary had stated that the weighing scale which was issued was mechanical. This discrepancy according to me is not material and the counsel for the Appellant did not seriously press the said point.