AJAY Vs. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 24.05.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.12A/2011 arising out of FIR No.200/2011 PS Malviya Nagar by which the appellant - Ajay was convicted for committing offence under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act. By an order dated 27.05.2014, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 1 lac.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that on 25.05.2011 at about 05.40 a.m. at Police Picket Shivalik Road, near Jal Bord Office, Malviya Nagar, the appellant - Ajay was found in possession of 161.200 Kg. of 'Ganja' without licence.

(3.) On 25.05.2011, PW-9 (SI Amit Chaudhary), PW-1 (HC Netrapal) and PW-11 (Const. Suraj Vir Tomar) were present at Anti-Snatching Picket, Shivalik Road. At about 05.40 a.m. one red colour Maruti Zen without number plate was seen coming from Panchsheel flyover side. On being signalled to stop, SI Amit Chaudhary made enquiries from the appellant driving the said car and asked him to produce relevant documents. The appellant did not furnish the documents. The car was found loaded with bags; two bags were lying in the front seat. On checking one bag, smell like 'Ganja' was found coming out of it. On further enquiries, it was found that the bags total numbering eight loaded in the car had 'Ganja' contained therein. Notice under Sec. 50 NDPS Act (Ex.PW-9/C) was served upon the appellant. Weighing machine was arranged and the total weight of the 'Ganja' came to be 161.200 kg. Two samples of 250 grams each were taken out the eight bags. Necessary proceedings were conducted. Ex.PW-9/A was prepared and sent for lodging FIR. Subsequent investigation was taken over by ASI Vijay Singh. The appellant was arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. In 313 Crimial P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. He did not examine any witness in defence. The Trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.