MOHD. HABIB Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS ap­peal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 10th January, 1991, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court at Alipore, 24 Paraganas (South) in S.T. Case No. 2 (11) 90, convicting the appellant under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act, for short and sentencing him to R.I. for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh only i.e. to further R. I. for 10years.

(2.) PROSECUTION case, in brief is that on 28-5-1988ataboutll.30hrs.whileSub-m-specior Ratan Lal Mukheriee (P.W4), at­tached to Garden Reach Police Station (Port Division), Calcutta at the relevant time, who is also the first Investigating Officer of the case, was on his round duty in the Meher Manzil Lane area, he received secret information from source that the appellant was selling "Brown Sugar" clandestinely to the public, arrested the appellant, on the identification of the source from Meher Manzil Lane, Calcut-ta-24, near premises No. G339/2 and on search of the person of the appellant, one bulb match-box was found in the right side pocket of his wearing shirt. On opening the match-box, ten small butter paper packets were found containing brown-sugar, which weighted two gms. (nett) on weighment. The match-box containing the brown-sugar packets was seized under a seizure-list (Ext. 4) in presence of wit­nesses P.W.I (declared hostile) and P.W.2, whose signatures were taken on the seizure list beside the signature of the ap­pellant. On arrival at the police station Section X Case No. 170 dated 28-5-88 under Section 21 of the NDPS Act was started against the appellant and P.W4 himself took up the investigation of the case and on his transfer one H.P. Ghosh was entrusted with the investigation of the case but Mr. Ghosh did not do any act of investigation and thereafter P. W 5 took up the investigation, collected the report of the public analyst (Ext. 2) and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and ultimately the appellant was placed on trial and con­victed and sentenced as above.

(3.) NO witness was examined on behalf of the defence and the defence case as can be understood from the trend of cross-examination and the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is of innocence and denial of the prosecution case.