LAWS(GAU)-2002-6-10

DIKBAHADUR CHETRI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On June 28, 2002
DIKBAHADUR CHETRI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal Appeal No. 201/2000 is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Special Case No. 10 of 1996. The two appellants before us namely, Sri Dikbahadur Chetri and Sri Krishna Lal Sanyashi, who happens to be brother-in- laws, were tried for the offence u/s. 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act for possession of opium. The prosecution allegation is that the two appellants while they were travelling in a bus bearing registration No. AS-23/5008, the vehicle was checked by the Police in a routine manner and during search, two accused persons were found to be earning waist belts and on checking, 1150 gms of opium and 400 gms opium were found in possession of the accused Sri Dikbahadur Chetri and Sri Krishna Lal Sanyashi respectively. The articles were seized and the accused persons were arrested. The seized articles were sent for Chemical analysis and the FSL report, Exts. 9 and 10 gave the finding that the sample is that of opium.

(2.) On conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge convicted the two appellants u/s. 18 of the NDPS Act and sentenced accused Dikbahadur Chetri to undergo imprisonment of 12 (twelve \) years and accused Krishna Lal to imprisonment for 10 (ten) years. Both the appellants were further directed to pay the fine of Rs. 100000/- (Rupees one lakh) each in default, to further imprisonment for one year. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) In this case, the report of the Chemical Examiner that the seized article was opium is not disputed. Exts. 9 and 10 are the FSL Report. Hence the trial Court rightly held that the seized article is opium. As regards the seizure of the opium from evidence of the Police Officers, namely, PW 1 Sri Rahul Amin, PW 2 Shri Jiten Borbora and Sri Sashi Kanta Das, PW 3, it is clear that they are all Police Officers and they were present at the time of search and seizure and they have deposed about the seizure of articles vide Exts. 1 and 2. Seized articles, material Exts. 1 and 2 were produced and identified.