PURUSHOTTAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) arise out of the judgment of conviction dated 28.07.2008 passed by the Special Judge, District Shahdol in Special Trial No.17/2005 convicting the appellant for the charge under Section 20-B read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) on account of recovery of 1 quintal 36 kg of Ganja (Cannabis) from a trunk in a house and sentencing him to Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 years with fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, in default 2 years' R.I.

(2.) The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on the basis of the information given by the informant dated 08.09.2005 that appellant Purushottam resident of Village-Harri was possessing unauthorized contraband (Cannabis) and selling from his house illegally. The Inspector J.B.S. Chandel called two independent witnesses through Mohd. Raees, Constable No.456 by issuing a notice (Ex.P-18) under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, they were brought to the Police Station and in front of them the Panchnama of the said information was prepared, which was signed by them and retained as Rojnamchasanha No.672 (Ex-P-35). Thereafter, its copy was sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police to comply the provisions of the NDPS Act, which was registered in their Office as Rojnamchasanha No.675 (Ex.P-36). Thereafter, the entry of returning of constable Raees Khan was made in the Rojnamchasanha No.676 (Ex.P-37). On receiving the same, a Police Party was prepared under the supervision of Inspector J.B.S. Chandel (PW-13) comprising of Constable Mohd. Raees Khan, constable Nos.103, 105, 133, 255 and Constable Driver No.11 and the independent witnesses namely Vikrant Upadhyay and Mahendra Singh who were sent to Village-Harri and intimation was also given through wireless that the photographer be immediately sent for Village-Harri. On reaching the spot, Mauka Panchnama (Ex.P-21) was prepared and the owner of the house (appellant) was called in front of the independent witnesses. In the presence of the appellant, Panchnama (Ex.P-22) was drawn and his signature was obtained. Thereafter, with the consent of the owner/appellant, the search of the house was made to which the Panchnama (Ex.P-23) was prepared. After entering, in Northen side of the house, in a room which was inside the kitchen, an iron trunk locked by two locks was found, which was unlocked with the help of the key given by Geeta wife of Purushottam. On opening the same, narcotic drug Cannabis was found, to which Panchanama (Ex.P-24) was prepared.

(3.) After taking cognizance by the trial Court, the charge was framed under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act against the accused, who denied the commission of the offence and took a defence that he is not residing in Village-Harri, in fact he is residing in Village-Dhurwar. It is said no recovery was made from his house, in fact it was from some other place and he was brought there while he was working in order to falsely implicate in this Case.