RAM LAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appellants above named were convicted by learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Special Case No. 31(K)/11, for commission of offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985, wherein they were sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh each in default to suffer further imprisonment for 2 years. The facts leading to filing of this appeal, may be stated, in brief as follows:

(2.) The two accused appellants above named were found possessing with them 3 bags, in which Ganja was found rapped in black polythene. Besides, a mobile handset and railway tickets were also found with them. PW. 1 seized the above articles vide Ext. 2 in presence of PW. 3, an officer accompanying him and PW. 4 Raja Ali, a local meat seller, from whom one weighing balance was requisitioned, for weighing the Ganja seized vide Ext. 3. One Md. Hamid (PW. 5) another witness was also present at the time of making seizure of the articles seized from the possession of the accused appellants. After seizure of the articles from the accused-appellants, on completing due formality PW. 1 sent 3 set of samples marked as Annexure-(A)(B)(C) to the State Forensic Laboratory vide Ext. 10, for chemical analysis of the samples. Mr. G.N. Deka, the Director of Narcotic department, vide report dated 7.10.07 confirmed that the samples tested positive for Ganja and accordingly, vide Ext. 8 letter dated 8.12.10 informed that he may be summoned in connection with the case as a witness. On completion of the investigation of the case, the investigation officer submitted charge sheet against both the accused-appellants alleging commission of offence under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

(3.) In view of the above, the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, as trial Court, upon hearing learned counsel for both the parties, framed formal charges against both the accused-appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act On reading over and explaining the charges aforesaid both the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.