SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.10.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, NDPS Act, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 05 of 2002. By the said judgment and order dated 09.10.2006, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 15,000/-.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, on 21.10.1999, the complainant, along with other police officials, proceeded from the Police Station for the purpose of recovery of illegal smack and charas. They stopped the gypsy before ten footsteps from the lane of Gurcharan's (husband of the accused) house for the purpose of collecting evidence from the general public, but none came forward for the same. Thereafter, they searched each other and on being satisfied that none of them was having any illegal contraband, they went to the lane of Gurcharan's house. There, a lady came out holding a child in her lap, and went back after seeing the police personnel. On having doubt, the lady constables apprehended Smt. Shanti on the door of the house and on asking her name and address, she disclosed her name as Shanti Devi. She was told that they are having information that she is in possession of illegal charas and smack and asked her whether she wants to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. Then, on giving consent by her, constable Karan Singh was sent to call the Circle Officer. Thereafter, in the presence of the Circle Officer, the lady constable searched Smt. Shanti Devi. On search, illegal smack was recovered in a white plastic bag from inside her blouse. Thereafter, the recovered smack was weighed and its weight was 11.8 grams. After following the procedure contemplated under the NDPS Act , the same was seized.

(3.) After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused appellant. Based on the same, charges were framed and the Court below has convicted the appellant for the aforementioned offence.