NAGINA JAMUNA RAI Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, failing which he was to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months for possessing ganja, kept in a black suit case, which fn turn further contained two packets having ganja weighing 33 kilograms and 17 kilograms respectively, the total ganja being 50 kilograms, under Section 20 NDPS Act. The appellant has challenged the abovesaid order in this appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant made the following four short submissions. Firstly, he argued that the tip off received by the police mentioned the name of Sanjeeva only. The name of Nagina is conspicuously missing. He argued that the prosecution case is thus tinged with suspicion.

(3.) This argument is lame of strength. I have perused the secret information which was recorded under DD No.10, proved on the record Ex. PW10/A, which clearly, specifically and unequivocally reads that Sanjeeva was coming with one companion. Although, it also mentions the name of Nagina, yet, it is doubtful whether it was written at the same time or subsequently, as the word Nagina was written upwards and not in the proper line. However, it does not make any difference because it is clearly written that Sanjeeva was coming with one companion. The argument does not make any dent upon the prosecution story,