RAJNEESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This jail appeal has been preferred by the appellant from jail against the judgment and conviction dated 28.5.2009 passed by Additional Session Judge/F.T.C., Court No.3, Gorakhpur in S.T. No.67 of 2008 (State of U.P. vs. Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava) arising out of Case Crime No.61 of 2008, under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur whereby the appellant was convicted for 10 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1 lac and in case of none payment of fine, he will further undergo one year additional simple imprisonment.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) On 12.1.2008, S.R. Azad, Station Officer alongwith companions was checking the vehicles as per directions of S.S.P. on Kushinagar Gorakhpur Road, then found a person in suspected condition, who alighted from a vehicle and he was intercepted having a sound box upon his head. On being inquired, he disclosed his name as Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava appellant and also apprise the reason for running that he was having charas in his sound box. The appellant was apprised of his right being search before the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, but instead he preferred search by the arrested police personnels, then 6.5 kg. charas is being recovered from the sound box of the appellant. He was also taken into custody. Seizure memo was prepared. Contraband was also sealed after taking sample, then FIR was being lodged. Case property was entered into Malkhana Register and was handed over to Malkhana Incharge. After investigation, charge-sheet is being submitted under Section 8/18/20 of N.D.P.S. Act. After framing the charge from which the appellant denied, PW-1 Jawahar Lal, PW-2 Constable Ved Kumar, PW-3 Station Officer S.R. Azad, PW-4 Investigating Officer Madhav Prasad Dwivedi and PW-5 Constable Amar Nath Tiwari were produced as prosecution witnesses. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was taken. As oral defense, DW-1 Rajeev Srivastava, brother of appellant is also being produced from the side of defense. After hearing the appellant side as well as prosecution side, trial court came to the conclusion that prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the appellant and thereby convicting the appellant as referred above.