KAILASH CHOWDHURY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.2.97 passed by the learned Special Judge, Tinsukia in N.D.P.S. Case No. 6(T) of 1994 convicting the appellant under Section 20(B)(I) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The appellant being highly aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence has preferred this appeal controverting the legality and validity of the judgment on various grounds. Shri Saha, learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of argument assailed the decision on the ground that the ingredients of offence under Section 20(B)(I) of the Act are lacking in the instant case in as much as there is no evidence to show that "Ganja" was seized from the possession of the appellant. Besides, it has been argued that the learned Special Judge has failed to consider the evidence of the witnesses in proper perspective and also did not consider the validity of the investigation done by an officer not empowered under the Act to investigate an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act. In addition, the learned counsel also raised grievance on the ground that the provisions of Section 41 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with.

(3.) A search was carried out in the residential premises of Ramayan Sahani and appellant-Kailash Chowdhury on 12.3.94 at about 10.30 A.M. by Shri Gauri Kanta Lahkar, Sub-Inspector of Police attached with Dhalla Police Station of Tinsukia District in presence of witnesses and seized 600 gms. of Ganja an the sample thereof was sent to expert, and the expert reported positive test of cannabis (Ganja). On completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the aforesaid persons. The trial proceeded against the appellant alone as the presence of other accused Ramayan Sahani could not be procured. The appellant was indicted for an offence under Section 20 of N.D.P.S. Act to which he pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses whereas the defence examined none. On conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge awarded the verdict of guilt and imposed the sentence as stated above.