LAWS(ALL)-2015-11-281

CHARAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On November 26, 2015
CHARAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.8.2002 passed by Sri Ali Zamin the then Addl. Sessions Judge Maharajganj in Special Case No.68/2001 Union of India vs. Charan Singh, under Section 8/20(b)(II) and 23 NDPS Act P.S. Sonouli District Maharajganj whereby the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 20 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 lac under Section 8/20B (II) and 23 NDPS Act on each count. It was also directed that in default of payment of fine the accused appellant shall further undergo two years simple imprisonment on each count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed by the trial court to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, in nutshell, is this that on 17.8.2001 at 7.30 p.m. in front of the office of the Customs Barrier Solouni lying in the circle of P.S. Solouni of district Maharajganj the Customs Officer intercepted Truck No. HR-39/8862 which was driven by the accused appellant. On being searched of that truck, 215 kg. charas was found hidden in the cavity behind the driver seat. The charas was wrapped in light brown adhesive tap. The samples of charas were taken by the Customs Officer and the same were sent for analysis. The Panchnama of that recovery was also prepared. On being analyzed the samples were found to be that of charas by Government Opium and Alkocoloid Works Ghazipur. The truck was seized and accused was arrested and information in this regard to the superior officers was given by the team headed by Customs Officer Tahir Malik. The said charas was Nepali charas and the same was being imported from Nepal to India by the accused appellant. A complaint was filed by the Union of India through Tahir Malik Customs Officer, Land Customs, Solouni in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge Maharajganj.

(3.) Charge under Section 8/20(b)(II) and 23 NDPS Act was framed against the accused appellant.