HANIF Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellant challenges the validity and propriety of his conviction and order of sentence passed on 17.7.1992 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi convicting him for an offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the 'Act') and sentencing him to RI for 10 years and a fine of Rs. one lakh, in default of payment of fine further RI for two years.

(2.) Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 5.1.1989 SI Varinder Singh posted at Police Station Kamla Market was on patrolling duty when Const. Rewat Ram also met him. He received secret information that one person will come from Pul Pahar Ganj with Charas in his possession. The said SI recorded the said information and organised a raiding party. Some public persons were asked to join but they declined except one Ajay who was returning from his duty and going home had agreed and he was joined in the said raiding party. At about 8.30 p.m. on the pointing out of the informer the accused was arrested near shop No. 5234, G.B. Road, Delhi; he was told about the secret information received that he was carrying charas and was also told that if he wanted, his search could be made in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The accused declined to exercise the option. In the meantime, Public Witness -2, Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station also reached there. Accused was carrying a bag with him, on search it was found to contain three packets in polythene papers which contained charas each weighing 500 gms. 100 Gms. sample was taken from each packet. These samples and the remaining charas were separately converted into parcels and seal of VS was put by SI Virendar Singh and handed over to the SHO who also put his seal of RK. CFSL form was also filled and sealed with sample seals of VS and RK. Rukka was drawn, and FIR was registered. The accused was arrested. CFSL report gave positive test of Charas. Accused was put to trial for an offence under Section 20 of the Act. During trial prosecution examined in all seven witnesses. Public Witness -1 ASI Rameshwar Singh had registered the FIR Ex. Public Witness 1/A on the basis of rukka. Public Witness 2 Insp. Ram Kishan was the SHO, he had reached the spot and has deposed that the said recovery was made in his presence. Public Witness -3 H.C. Jagat Singh the Moharrar Malkhana has deposed about deposit of case property and proved Ex. Public Witness 3/A copy of relevant entry in the register. Public Witness -4, Ajay is the public witness. He has not supported the prosecution case though he has admitted his signatures on seizure memo Ex. Public Witness 4/A and arrest Memo Ex. Public Witness 4/B.

(3.) PW-5 H.C. Rajinder Singh had deposed about having deposited the sealed samples with CFSL. Public Witness -6 H.C. Rewat Ram has deposed supporting the prosecution case as an eye witness. Public Witness -7 is the Investigating Officer and was heading the search party; he has also supported the prosecution case.