AKHIL CHANDRA PATHAK Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three appeals having arisen out of the same judgment dated 27.10.2014, passed by the learned Special Judge, Kamrup (M), in NDPS Case No. 24/2013 are taken up together for hearing and disposal. By the said judgment, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellants under Section 20(b)(C)/8(c)/29 of the NDPS Act R/W Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for 14 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default to undergo further imprisonment for six months. The appellants were further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulation under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The sentence of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) On 5.1.2013, Sri Santanu Aich, Superintendent, NCB received a secret information that one person, namely, Dipak Das will take a consignment of ganja from Nalapara area of Guwahati in two vehicles bearing registration No. AS-01-R/9175 and AS-01-AW/7900. The said information was reduced to writing by Superintendent Santanu Aich and forwarded the same to his superior officer, Officiating Zonal Director, who constituted a team comprising of NCB officers to pursue the information. He also authorized said Santanu Aich to conduct search andseize the contraband and Sri A.K. Mondal to carry out the investigation after the seizure. Asper the secret information, the NCB team, under the leadership of Santanu Aich proceeded to the place of operation and reached the Nalapara area at about 20.50 hours and kept surveillance over the vehicles. At about 21.00 hours, they spotted two vehicles bearing registration No. AS-01-R/9175 (TATA Indica) and AS-01-AW/7900 (Chevrolet Beat) as mentioned in the secret information and they followed the said vehicles by their own vehicle.At about 21.30 hours, both the suspected vehicles entered into the residence of Dipak Das at Janakpur, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19 and five persons alighted from the said two vehicles andcarried some packets from the vehicles into a room. The NCB team having found two local persons passing through the road, requested them to be witnesses to the search, who agreed to be witnessed to the search and seizure and along with the said two independent witnesses,the NCB team entered into the room of Dipak Das, where they down loaded the packets from the vehicles. On being asked by them, one person opened the door, who introduced himself as Sadhan Deb (appellant). The NCB team having entered into the room introduced themselves and the four other persons, who were inside the room, also disclosed their identity as DipakDas, Akhil Pathak, Tiken Das, Sukleswar Das. The NCB team noticed that all of them were weighing the packets of ganja by manual weighing system. After disclosing their identity, theNCB team tested some small sample and found that it was ganja. They also gave notice to the said 5 persons under Section-50 of the NDPS Act asking them whether they would like to be searched personally in presence of Magistrate and as they offered for search without the presence of the Magistrate, the NCB team conducted personal search of all the 5 persons and recovered some innocuous items, like, driving license, identity card, mobile phone, documentof the vehicle etc. They also took samples of ganja from all the 32 packets weighing 24 grams each in duplicate and the entire lot of ganja was weighed and found to be 123.4 kg. The NCB team made all the necessary formalities for search and seizure and taking sample etc. in presence of witnesses. Thereafter the samples were sent for forensic examination, which gave positive test for ganja. After completing the process and obtaining forensic report, a formal complaint was lodged with the Special Judge. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, NCB, the learned Special Judge took cognizance, recorded evidence and eventually charges were framed under Section 20( b)(ii)(C)/25/27A/29/8(C) of NDPS Act R/W Section 149 IPC against all the appellants, to which, they pleaded not guilty. After framing of the charges, the witnesses were further cross examined by the accused. As many as 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the appellants also examined under Section 313 CrPC and on appreciation of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants and awarded sentence as indicated above.

(3.) Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the appeal.