ALLA BAKSH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the sole accused in S.C. No. 17/93 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under Essential Commodities Act-cum-III Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. By the judgment, dated 6-7-1995, the accused has been convicted for the offences u/S. 8(c) r/w. Ss. 18 and 20(b)(2) and 20(b)(1) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 and in default, to suffer R.I. for five years for the offence under S. 18 of NDPS Act and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 for the offence under S. 20(b)(2) and he was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 for the offence u/S. 20(b)(1) of NDPS Act. The sentences of imprisonment are ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief, is as follows : PW-1 J. Narasinga Reddy, the then Inspector of Police, CID, Narcotic Cell received information at about 2 p.m. on 24-7-1993 that a person was selling drugs near the Govt. Junior College for Boys at Nampally, Hyderabad. He secured panchas, PW-2 Godugu Sandeepraj and another and proceeded to the place and found the appellant-accused near the main gate of Govt. Junior College for Boys, Nampally holding a green colour rexin Zip bag (M.O. 1). PW-1 took the accused into custody and interrogated him in the presence of PW-2 and another panch witnesses and seized M.O. 1 the Zip bag from the possession of the accused. On search of M.O. 1, it contained Opium (M.O. 2) of 400 gms. in polythene bag, cheras of about 130 grams (M.O. 3) in the white polythene bag and 24 paper pockets containing Ganja (M.O. 4). PW. 1 took three samples from the polythene bags containing Opium, Cheras and Ganja and kept them in polythene bags and seized them in the presence of mediators. The panchanama Ex. P-1 was drafted in the presence of the panch witnesses PW-2 and another and it was attested by them. One sealed paper containing sample of Opium, one sealed paper containing sample Cheras and one sealed paper containing Ganja were given to the accused and obtained his aknowledgement. PW-1 also explained to be accuse the reasons for his arrest and also appraised him that he will be produced before the nearst Magistrate for search if he is willing. After completion of panchanama Ex. P-1, PW. 1 brought the accused and M.Os. 1 to 4 to the office of the Director General of Police, C.B.C.I.D. and submitted his report Ex. P-2 for registering a case under Ss. 19 and 20 of N.D.P.S. Act. As per the directions of the Director General of Police, C.I.D., PW-5 took up further investigation. PW-5 registered Ex. P-2 which contained the endorsement of DIG, CID forwarding it for further investigation, as a case in Cr. No. 38/91 and issued the FIR Ex. P-7. PW-5 sent the accused to the IX Metropolitan Magistrate for remand. He deposited M.Os. 1 to 4 in Court and submitted a requisition Ex. P-9 with a letter of advice under Ex. P-3 to send the samples to Central Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis and report. PW-3 took up further investigation in this case. PW-4, The Dy. Director, incharge of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory received the samples and he analysed the samples and sent his report Ex. P-5 along with the covering letter Ex. P-6. He submitted his report stating that on analysis, he found Opium containing 1.7% of Morphin and the other two are Cheras and Ganja. After completing the investigation, PW-3 laid the charge-sheet against the accused. (ii) The accused, when questioned, pleaded not guilty to the charges under Ss. 8(c) r/w. 18, r/w. 20(2)(b) and r/w. 20(b)(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Pschotropic substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called N.D.P.S. Act) framed against him and claimed to be tried. (iii) To prove it's case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 5 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-9 and M.Os. 1 to 7. (iv) The accused when examined u/S. 313, Cr. P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, stated that he had been falsely implicated, and that he is an innocent person. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses. (v) On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, the learned Special Sessions Judge held that the accused in guilty of the charges framed against him and convicted him and sentenced him as stated earlier. Questioning the said verdict convicting and sentencing him to imprisonment, the accused has come up with this appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and the Public Prosecutor at length. The learned counsel for the appellant took me through the entire evidence on record and also the impugned judgment.