OKOKE PAUL OBI Vs. R S PODAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 - AIU, Union of India.

(2.) Appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 21 read with sections 8(c) and 29 and section 23 read with sections 8(c) and 28 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(3.) The only point urged by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the Chemical Analyser who was examined by the prosecution did not point out the percentage of heroin in the powder which was recovered from the two bags found with the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant was arrested on 27-5-2003 and has undergone about 7 years of sentence out of 10 years which has been awarded to him. He invited my attention to the evidence of the said witness examined by the prosecution. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in E. Micheal Raj vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, 2008 5 SCC 161. He invited my attention to the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment where the Apex Court has observed that in the event the prosecution is not in a position to establish the percentage of narcotic substance, the benefit of amendment made in NDPS Act which came into effect on 2-10-2001 in respect of the sentence, should be given to the accused.