BANWARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal Appeal preferred by appellant Banwari Lal against the judgment and order dated 20 -11 -1997 passed by Sri R.K. Sharma, the then II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital by which he convicted the appellant u/s 8/20 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for the short 'N.D.P.S. Act') and sentenced him for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. One Lac. In default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo two years R.I.

(2.) IN nut shell the prosecution case is that on 25 -09 -1993 5.0. Devendra Singh Digari (PW -1) alongwith Head Constable Ramesh Ram (PW -2) were on patrol duty. When they reached half kilometer from Canal Colony gate in the south they saw a person coming on foot. Seeing the police party the appellant hesitated and was pretending to urinate 5 paces away from the road. At 07:20 a.m. the police on suspicion, stopped that person and asked his name and address. He told his name as Banwari Lal S/o Puran Lal Rio Tanakpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. On search a bundle of 350 grams of Charas covered with polythene was recovered from his right pocket of his Pant. On enquiry the appellant stated that he had brought that Charas from Chandni (Nepal) for which he had no license. The appellant was asked by the police whether he wanted to get his search made before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate but he denied to avail of that right. The appellant was arrested and the recovered contraband was sealed on the spot and recovery memo (Ex.Ka -1) was prepared on the spot. As the recovery was made suddenly and the place of recovery being lonely no public witness was available. The appellant and the recovered article were brought to the police station Banbasa where S.O. lodged F.I.R. (Ex.Ka -2) on the same day at 08:30 a.m. and a case u/s 15/20 N.D.P.S. Act was registered against the appellant. After completing the formalities of investigation charge -sheet (Ex,Ka -6) was submitted against the appellant by PW3 S.I. Prakash Chandra Mathpal.

(3.) CHARGE was framed against the appellant U/s 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.