SHAKTI DOM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four jail appeals arise out of a common judgment and order of Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, the then Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no.7, Deoria, dated 08.11.2016 passed in Criminal Case no.8 of 2013, State of U.P. vs. Basant Dom (arising out of Case Crime no.300 of 2012), under Section 8/21, 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), Police Station G.R.P. Bhatani, District Deoria; Criminal Case no.9 of 2013, State of U.P. vs. Devendra Ram (arising out of Case Crime no.299 of 2012), under Section 8/21, 22 of the Act, Police Station G.R.P. Bhatani, District Deoria; Criminal Case no.10 of 2013, State of U.P. vs. Vikas Ram (arising out of Case Crime no.301 of 2012), under Section 8/21, 22 of the Act, Police Station G.R.P. Bhatani, District Deoria; and, Criminal Case no.11 of 2013, State of U.P. vs. Shakti Dom (arising out of Case Crime no.302 of 2012), under Section 8/21, 22 of the Act, Police Station G.R.P. Bhatani, District Deoria.

(2.) By the aforesaid judgment and order, each of the four appellants, have been convicted by the learned Trial Judge, of commission of an offence punishable under Section 8/22 of the Act, holding the charges to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and, for the said offence the appellants, Devendra Ram, Basant Dom and Vikas Ram have been ordered to suffer 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment, besides being ordered to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh each. In default of payment of fine, the concerned appellant has been ordered to suffer one year R.I. Appellant, Shakti Dom has been sentenced to eight years Rigorous Imprisonment, besides being ordered to pay a fine of Rs.80,000/-. In the event of default, the appellant last mentioned, has been ordered to suffer a year's R.I.

(3.) All the four cases arise out of a common occurrence dated 29.12.2012 based on an alleged recovery of Alprazolam powder, exceeding the commercial quantity, from each of the four appellants. On the basis of the recovery, a common recovery memo was drawn up relating to all the four appellants, leading to registration of four separate crimes, against each of the appellants but founded on a common Chik FIR dated 29.12.2012, culled out from the common search-cum-recovery memo last mentioned. It is needless to say, that relating to each of four crime numbers separately assigned, requisite G.D. entries were made. In the said case crimes, though a common investigation was undertaken, four charge sheets have come to be filed, each giving rise to a separate criminal case on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as detailed hereinbefore.