HARUN RASID Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG>Bhattacharya, J.</DJG> : The hearing stems from an appeal preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge, Special Court under the N.D.P.S. Act, 6th Court, Barasat in Case No. N-1/1999 on 23.08.2001.

(2.) Shortly put, and shorn of details, the Prosecution case is that on 23.12/1998 at about 7.00 hrs. while accused Harun Rasid holding a steef can in hand was waiting in front of Premises No. 19, Sadhana Ausodhalaya Road, Dakshin Dari, Calcutta-48 for selling heroin to different customers, acting on an intelligence a batch of Officers of NCB, EZU, Calcutta intercepted him, expressed their desire to search him as he was suspected to carry and sell heroin. On their offer for an option to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer intimating that a Gazetted Officer of NCB was with the raiding party, the accused agreed to be searched before the Gazetted Officer of NCB. As a result of search after observing necessary formalities, 121 paper purias containing brown coloured powdered substance, a polythene packet containing similar brown coloured powdered substance, both believed to be heroin concealed in the said steel can and a sum of Rs. 190/- as sale proceeds kept in the wearing trousers were recovered. After testing of a small quantity of the said powdered substance taken out from purias and polythene packet with the U.N.O. Field Test Kit, it responded positive result. Samples were drawn for chemical test and articles recovered were inventorised and seized in presence of witnesses and Gazetted Officer. On a notice under Section 67 of the Act being served the accused in his voluntary statement admitted his guilt. Hence, the above accused was charged under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

(3.) The defence case, as suggested to P.Ws. and as contended by the accused person during his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C., is that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused and the names of witnesses to the alleged seizure are imaginary. He did not sign the consent letter. The alleged voluntary statement was recorded according to the will of the NCB Officers. The factum of the alleged incident is not true.