JAVED AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONKARESHWAR Bhatt, J. Appellant, Javed Ahmad, has preferred this appeal against judgment and order dated 22-4-1988 passed by the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No. 358 of 1987. The appellant had been convicted under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rupees one lac and in default of payment of fine to undergo further two years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) SRI Rama Shanker Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellant and SRI G. S. Bisaria, learned A. G. A. appearing for the State, have been heard.

(3.) THE recovery of contraband from possession of the appellant has been stated by P. W. 1 Raj Narain Dubey and P. W. 2 Ram Naresh Singh, who happened to be police officials. Two witnesses of public, namely, Jokhu Yadav and Dina Nath Yadav have not been examined in this case. THE trial Court has found that these two witnesses were summoned. Summonses were served on them but they did not turn up. THE trial Court has also found that at the instance of the appellant also these two witnesses were summoned. THE material on record shows that the prosecution did make effort to examine the public witnesses. It is well settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be a police official. Nothing has come in the cross examination of P. W. 1 Raj Narain Dubey or P. W. 2 Ram Naresh Singh for discrediting their sworn testimony. THEy have fully supported the prosecution case regarding the apprehension, search and seizure of the contraband from (sic appellant ).