LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-12

SURAJ PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On December 06, 2017
SURAJ PRASAD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 03.05.1991, passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in S.T. No.142 of 1990 (State Vs. Suraj Prasad) whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and awarded punishment of ten years' R.I., fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine five years' additional R.I., under Section 20(b)(ii) of NDPS Act. The facts in brief of this case are as follows:

(2.) On 05.07.1990, S.I. Sri Vinaya Kumar Singh (PW-1) alongwith Head Constable Sri Collector Prasad Singh (PW-2) were present on G.R.P. Chauki, Chandauli. When they came to know that 127 U.P. Manduadih, Moghalsarai Passenger Train was about to come on platform, Constables Shri Kant Yadav and Radhey Shyam Tewari (PW-4) who were present in front of the Chauki were directed that they will undertake crime control proceedings by being on the move. When the train arrived on the station at about 17:50 hours the police party headed towards the east from their Chauki and noticed a person getting down from the last bogi and started heading towards east swiftly. Being suspicious, he was directed to stop, he ignored the direction and started moving at faster pace. He was caught at about 17.52 hours near a tree of Jamun near cemented bench. When enquired, he disclosed his name to be Suraj Prasad. When personal search was made, charas was found from him weighing about 01kg which was kept in a soiled bag and started apologizing.

(3.) He was apprised that he had committed an act punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act and was taken into custody. From the recovered charas, about 20gm quantity was taken out as sample, which was kept in a 'jarde ki dibiya' and after wrapping the same in a cloth was sealed on the spot. The remaining recovered charas was kept in the same bag (Jhola) and was also sealed. The samples of seals were separately prepared. The people present there were requested to be witness of proceedings but none gave consent. The recovery memo (Ex. Ka-5) having been prepared on the spot, a copy of the same was provided to the accused.