KULDEEP SAHU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under Section 376(2) has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence passed by Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Mandla in Sessions Trial No.09/2004 passed on 25.09.2006, where by the appellants have been convicted under Section 8/20(b)(ii)(b) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and sentenced thereto R.I. for 4 years each with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default R.I. for 6 months.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that on 08.11.2004 at 2:00 p.m. R.M.Dubey, S.H.O./S.I., Police Station Nainpur received information that Kuldeep Sahu has stored ganja for sale in his house situated in ward no. 10, Nainpur. Panchnama Ex.P/1 was prepared in presence of the witnesses. After obtaining the search warrant he proceeded to the house of Kuldeep Sahu along with staff and two independent witnesses. Kuldeep Sahu came out of his house on his asking. Search was given to him and after complying with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, the house of Kuldeep Sahu was searched. 12 kilograms ganja was found in 3 different containers kept there. Out of which 2 samples of 50 grams each were drawn. Ganja and samples were seized from Kuldeep Sahu vide Ex.P/9. Weights, measures and Rs.743/- were seized from Gajraj vide seizure memo Ex.P/13. Panchnama of the proceeding was prepared. The accused persons were arrested. They were brought to police station Nainpur along with contraband articles. F.I.R. was registered. Ganja was deposited in Malkhana. Sample was sent for chemical examination to F.S.L., Sagar from where the report received. After completing the usual investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Mandla.

(3.) Appellants stood charged under Section 8/20(b)(ii)(b) of the Act to the effect that on 08.11.2004 at 5.10 p.m. at the house of Kuldeep Sahu they were found having stored 12 kilograms ganja for sale. Appellants abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and defence did not examine any witness. After relying on the prosecution evidence, trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 8/20(b)(ii)(b) of the Act and sentenced thereunder as stated in para no. 1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the instant appeal has been filed on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal