BANS BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AJAI Kumar Singh, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9-4-1997 passed by Sri S. K. Ratoori, the then First Additional Sessions Judge, Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Case No. 19 of 1996, State v. Bans Bahadur, under Section 20 (b) (ii) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') convicting and sentencing the appellant accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine to undergo a further imprisonment for 2 years.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that on 15-3-1996, when Om Prakash, Station Officer P. S. Debarua, District Siddharth Nagar alongwith other police officials was returning back from petrol duty and reached near Pachperwa crossing at about 3. 50 a. m. , a person was seen standing with a bag in his hand near a Hotel under suspicious condition. When that person was challenged by the first informant S. O. Om Prakash, he started running but was apprehended by the police party by using appropriate force. On enquiry, that person disclosed his name as Bans Bahadur and also stated that he had charas with him and because of this reason, he was running. On personal search, one kg of charas was recovered from the bag he was having in his hand. Sample of the contraband article was taken from the seized contraband and then the sample and the remaining contraband article were sealed separately. Memo of recovery (Ex. Ka-2) was prepared at the spot and a copy of the same was given to the accused. Thereafter, the sized property and the accused were taken to the police station, where chik FIR (Ex. Ka- 2) was prepared on the basis of the recovery memo. Entries were also made in the G. D. , the copy of which (Ex. Ka-3) has been proved by the prosecution. I. O. prepared the site plan map (Ex. Ka-4 ). The sample of the seized contraband was sent for the chemical examination to the Scientific Laboratory and the test report disclosed the recovered contraband to be charas. After the close of the investigation, charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-5) has been submitted against the accused. Charge under Section 20 (b) (ii) the Act was framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

(3.) AFTER considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court found the appellant accused guilty of the offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the Act and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused.