NARAIN SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed this appeal against the conviction and sentence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Phychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act for short) by Sh. O.P. Diwedi, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi. The sentence against him is RI for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lac or in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for two years.

(2.) THE story of the prosecution in brief is that on 28 -5 -1987, ASI Shyam Singh, was present in the office room of the SHO, Police Station, New Delhi Railway Station. The SHO, Inspector Jai Narain was also present there. ASI Shyam Singh received a secret information at about 6.45 p.m. that one person having charas in his possession will come by Vaishali Express and will go out through the railway phatak. A raiding party was organised. Public witness Sushil Kumar was also joined on the way. At about 7.30 p.m., the appellant is alleged to have entered the railway phatak from the side of the railway quarters, carrying a brief case in his hand. He was apprehended and told that he was suspected to be in possession of Charas and that he could be produced before a Gazetted Officer for search, if he so desired. The appellant, however, declined. Then ASI Shyam Singh also offered his own search which was also declined. On opening the brief case it was found to contain 6 packets of charas weighing 1 kg each. On further opening of the packets, they were found to contain two smaller packets each containing charas. 12 different samples were prepared according to rules and taken into possession vide recovery memo. They were given serial numbers. Form CFSL was filled up, site plan was prepared, statements of the witnesses were recorded and personal search memo of the appellant was also prepared. Case property was then deposited in the Malkhana. The samples were sent to CFSL and on receipt of the report of the Analyst giving positive test for charas challan was filed. Learned ASJ after recording the evidence of various prosecution witnesses recorded the conviction and sentence as stated above.

(3.) THE case of the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was that the prosecution story was wrong and he was falsely implicated. In fact, he was coming from the railway station and while he was on the over -bridge, he dashed against some person who fell down. As a result of that, there was some altercation and the police took him in custody and planted this false case on him.