ANARAM NATH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.2.2014 of the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions (Spl.) Case No. 01/2013, convicting the accused appellant namely Sri Anaram Nath under Section 20(C) of the NDPS Act. Consequent upon such conviction, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default, to undergo RI for another 6 months. The period of detention already undergone is to be set off. Be it stated here that the accused appellant has been convicted along with another namely Sri Dilip Nath with the same sentence. SI of police Badri Prasad Baruwati of Morigaon Police Station had lodged an FIR with Morigaon Police Station on 19.5.2013 stating therein that on 18.4.2013 when routine checkup of vehicle was going on at Basnaghat Chariali two bags containing suspected Ganja of 5 KG each were recovered from the possession of two accused persons, who were traveling in the Bus bearing registration No. AS-21-C-1237. The information so received was recorded vide G.D. Entry No. 447 dated 18.4.2013. Suspected Ganjas were seized in presence of witnesses by observing all the formalities and they were sealed and packed. The accused persons were arrested and sent to custody. Sample was drawn and sent to FSL. On receipt of examination report from the Deputy Director, Drugs and Narcotics Division, FSL, it was found that positive test for cannabis (ganja) was recorded therein.

(2.) On receipt of the FIR, Morigaon P.S. Case No. 160/2013 under Section 20(c) NDPS Act. On completion of the investigation charge was framed against the accused persons under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. The charge being read over to the accused persons, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and accordingly trial commenced.

(3.) During trial, prosecution examined 9 witnesses including the 10 and exhibited materials and documents. The statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 CrPC. The learned Trial Court appreciating the evidence on record having convicted the accused appellant along with the other co-accused Sri Dilip Nath as aforesaid, he has preferred this appeal.