JAGDISH GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal jail appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 07-4-2007 passed by the then Special Judge, Sessions Judge, Almora in Special S. T. No. 15/2005, whereby Spe cial Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 8/20 of the N. D. RS. Act and sentenced him to undergo Rl for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 1 lakh. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo S. I. for one year.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26-02-2005, the police patrolling party headed by S. H. O. Ganga Singh PW1 was on the way to village Bhatkot. When they reached near Laxmi Hotel, they found two persons going on the road towards Hanuman Mandir Block having bags on their heads. THEreafter, the police patrolling party immediately apprehended after chasing them at about 14. 50 hours on 26-02-2005. THE appellant was duly informed of his right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate as re quired under section 50 of the Act but he declined that offer. THE S. H. O. Ganga Singh PW1 took his search in presence of Head Constable Kalyan Ram PW2. THE appellant was found carrying 25 kg. of 'ganja' in a bag, whereas co-accused was found carrying 20kg. of 'ganja' in a plastic bag. On being asked, the appellant informed that the sub stance was 'ganja' and he was bringing it from Jorasi. THE same was seized by Ganga Singh PW1. Two samples of 500 grams 'ganja' each were prepared at the spot and remaining 'ganja' was intact in the bag. THEreafter, the police arrested the accused-appellant, sent the seized articles to the police station and lodged a report in this regard. THE sample taken from the seized article was sent for chemical examination and it was proved to be 'ganja'. THE police investigated the matter. After completing the investiga tion, the police submitted the chargesheet against the appellant. (THE other co-accused is not before me, as he was not convicted by the judgment im pugned, as such, I am not concerned with the other co-accused in this appeal.)

(3.) THE accused-appellant was exam ined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He denied that he had committed any offence. He stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. He had further stated that he used to go from one place to another in connection with the selling of his articles and on the date of incident, he was going for the same purpose. THE accused-appellant did not adduce any evidence in support of his defence.