NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Naresh Kumar son of Karan Singh resident of Village Rohata, P.S. Sarurpur, District Meerut (UP) against the judgment and order dated 2.09.2006 of the learned Special Judge, Panipat, convicting the accused-appellant for committing offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity "NDPS Act") as also against the order of sentence of even date whereby he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of fifteen years, besides, imposing fine of Rs 2 lacs and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years.

(2.) The accused-appellant (for short the "appellant") was 38 years old on the date of recovery of contraband on 3.5.2005.

(3.) The prosecution story unfolded in FIR No.104 dated 3.5.2005 under Section 18 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Samalkha is that on 3.5.2005 at about 12:30 p.m., when complainant-Inspector Prem Singh was present at Gate No.1, New Grain Market, Samalkha on patrolling duty and for detection of crime he saw a man walking out from the inside of the New Bus Stand, Samalkha, heading towards grain market gate No.1. He was holding a tin container ('pipa') (for short "container") in his right hand encased in a cardboard box as described in the FIR. On seeing the police party, he stopped short leading to suspicion in the minds of police party on which the Complainant/Inspector-Prem Singh apprehended the appellant while he was trying to escape. On being caught, he disclosed his name and address. He was served a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act that he was suspected of carrying some intoxicants in the container. He was reminded of his legal rights and apprised that if he wanted the impending search to be conducted before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer or by the complainant he had a choice to which he requested presence of Gazetted Officer in case search was to be done. The notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and his reply thereto counter-signed by police witnesses present and the appellant were taken on record.