DILIP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants Dilip Kumar and Rajoo were prosecuted under section 8/21 NDPS Act on the basis of FIR lodged by the Station Officer, Police Station Kothi, District Barabanki. Both the appellants were found guilty of the offence by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki in S.T. No.113 of 1990 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years each along with a fine of Rupees one lac. It was provided that in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, the police of police station Kothi, District Barabanki received an information that two persons having contraband heroine where about to come on a motorcycle. The Station Officer formed a police party and the appellants were found coming on a Hero Honda Motorcycle. On being stopped and asked, they disclosed their names and on being offered for their search before a Magistrate, they agreed that their search may be taken by the Station Officer himself. The police took search of both the appellants, but did not find anything objectionable except a wrist watch, gold ring and some cash. However, when the motorcycle on which they were going was searched, a bag of rexine containing contraband heroine was found kept in the motorcycle. The alleged substance was weighed on the spot and it was found that the total weight of heroine was 400 grams. They confessed their guilt before the police officer and after taking specimen from the recovered substance, the same was packed and sealed. Both the appellants were taken into the custody and were brought to the police station, where a case was registered against them. The Investigating Officer investigated the case and sent the specimen to lab for chemical analysis. The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation submitted charge -sheet against the appellants.

(3.) THE prosecution produced three witnesses during trial and the learned Trial Judge on appraisal of prosecution evidence found the charge against both the appellants fully proved and convicted them, as aforesaid.