NANNU SAHU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment-dated 27.11.2007 passed by Special Judge (under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) (for short 'the Act'), Jabalpur in Special Case No.19/2007 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 8 read with S.20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 2 years.

(2.) Prosecution story, in short, is that on 25.03.2007 at about 2.30 p.m., N.R. Ghudawat (PW7), who was posted as Sub-Inspector at P.S. Omti, Jabalpur, received a credible information that the appellant, while carrying Ganja on a bicycle for the purpose of sale, was expected to arrive at the turn of St. Norbert School located near Bhanvartal Garden. After recording the corresponding information in the Rojnamcha and observing all other statutory formalities, he proceeded towards the spot along with other members of the police force and panch witnesses namely Jameel Khan (PW1) and Basant Sonkar (PW4). At about 4.40 p.m., the appellant was seen coming from the side of bus-stand pedaling a cycle with a white plastic bag on its carrier. He was apprised of his legal right whereunder he could require presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate for the purpose of search. However, he declined to exercise the right. Accordingly, with his consent only, the bag was searched. It was found to contain a total quantity of 15.250 Kgs. of Ganja. The contraband was duly seized and two samples of 25 gms. each were drawn. One of the samples was forwarded to FSL, Sagar. The corresponding report (Ex.P-20) indicated that the sample contained Ganja that is cannabis hemp within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(b) of the Act.

(3.) The appellant pleaded false implication at the instance of one Shri Khampariya who, at the relevant point of time, was posted as ASI at P.S. Garha, Jabalpur. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses including the detecting officer and the panch witnesses. No evidence was led in defence. Upon a critical appraisal of the evidence on record, learned trial Judge, for the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment, proceeded to hold the appellant guilty of the offence charged with.