SAROJ Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Saroj wife of Deep Chand has, preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 8th Feb., 1994, passed by Sri J.S. Dubey, Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Session Trial No. 201 of 1990, State v. Saroj , whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Sec. 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act) for a period of ten years and a fine of Rupee One Lac (Rs. 1,00,000.00) and in default to undergo five years R.I. in lieu thereof.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 18th June, 1988 S.I. Udal Singh with a large number of police personnel was on patrol duty. When he reached near Shalimar Garden, he got an information through a Mukhbir that a gang of men and women have come from Delhi and are selling smack at Bhopura Road. Believing information to be true, he came to the police outpost, Shalimar Garden from where some more police personnel including Constable Mahabir Singh (P.W. 2) were picked up. Then they all proceeded towards Bhopura road. In the way S.I. H.S. Cheema and some Constables, who were on patrol duty, were also picked up. The entire force on the P.A.C. vehicle reached near hotel of Dharmu on Bhopura road from where they saw that some men and women are selling smack and then reached the spot at 4.30 p.m. The appellant along with seven other persons were arrested on the spot. On search of the appellant 8 packs of smack and Rs. 2.90 were recovered from her right pocket of Kurta. Similarly, contrabands were recovered from other members of the gang. Common recovery memo was prepared by P.W. 1 S.I. Udal Singh and recovered contrabands were sealed on the spot. The sealed articles and all the arrested accused were brought to the Police Station, Shahibabad where the case was registered and chick FIR was prepared. The sealed articles were also sent for chemical examination. On analysis, the seized articles were found heroin. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against all the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of its case the prosecution examined only two witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Udal Singh and H.C. Mahabir Singh (P.W. 2). After the close of prosecution evidence statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Sec. 313, Criminal Procedure Code She denied the prosecution version and stated to have been falsely implicated in this case.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A.