SAGAR DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2011 and 31.05.2011 passed by learned Judge, Special Court under N. D. P. S. Act, 3rd Court, Howrah in T. R. Case No.12 of 2008 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N. D. P. S. Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- only, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years more.

(2.) The prosecution case, as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that in the course of mobile duty on 28.07.2008 at around 5.30 a.m., S. I. Supriya Rang, P.W.4 and his team apprehended a Santro vehicle at the Toll Plaza at Second Hooghly Bridge while undertaking surveillance of vehicles in connection with a bomb blast in Ahmedabad. Such information was communicated to S. I. Asit Baran Dey, P.W.1 who immediately reached the spot. On arrival, P.W.1 found a person was sitting inside the car with five polypacks which were suspected to contain ganja. The driver of the vehicle had run away. The person sitting inside the vehicle disclosed his identity and admitted that the packets contained ganja. Appellant was given option to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or Magistrate. Notice in writing was issued to him and in reply he agreed to be searched either in the presence of a Magistrate or a gazetted officer. As a Magistrate was not available, Additional I.C., Tapan Mukherjee came to the spot. Further notice was issued upon the appellant who expressed his willingness to be searched. Pursuant to the search, 103 kgs. of ganja in 5 packets were recovered under a seizure list in the presence of local witnesses viz., Sanjoy Shaw and Badal Mondal. Seized alamats as well as the appellant were taken to the police station. On the written complaint of P.W.1, Asit Baran Dey, Shibpur P.S. Case No.277 of 2008 dated 28.07.2008 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N. D. P. S. Act was registered for investigation. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N. D. P. S. Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) In course of trial, prosecution examined 8 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.