LAWS(P&H)-2003-2-162

JAGBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On February 11, 2003
JAGBIR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 2.8.2002 and sentence dated 3.8.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, exercising the powers of the Special Judge, whereby the appellant-accused had been convicted under Sec. 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000.00. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

(2.) Put shortly, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 26.1.1999, ASI Hukam Chand (PW-7) in the company of HC Jai Bhagwan (PW-6) and other police officials was present in the area of village Lajwana Khurd in connection with crime detection and patrolling. Ganeshi Lal son of Inder Singh, resident of Ward No. 12, Julana met the police party. While ASI Hukam Chand was talking to him, he received a secret information to the effect that accused Jagbir son of Tara Chand, resident of Lajwana Kalan, who dealt in charas, was present at Bus Stand, Lajwana Khurd and if raid was conducted, Charas could be recovered from his possession. Thereafter, ASI Hukam Chand joined Ganeshi Lal in the raiding party and reached Bus Stand, Jalwana Khurd. On seeing the police party, one person present there all of a sudden turned back and started walking briskly. On suspicion, he was secured by ASI Hukam Chand. ASI Hukam Chand informed him that he had suspicion that he was carrying some contraband intoxicant in his possession. He served a notice Ex.PF upon the accused apprising him of his right of search being conducted before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. The accused desired that his search be conducted before a gazetted officer and memo in this regard was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the accused was taken to the residence of Shri Subhash Yadav, Deputy Superintendent of Police at Jind. In the presence of Shri Subhash Yadav, DSP, under his instructions, search of the accused was conducted by ASI Hukam Chand which led to the recovery of Charas wrapped in a wax paper from the right hand side pocket of the shirt of the accused. 50 Grams of charas was separated as sample and remaining charas was found to be 450 grams. The sample and residue charas were separately sealed with the seal of HC of the Investigating Officer and SY of Subhash Yadav, DSP. Ruqa Ex.PA was transmitted to Police Station, Julana, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered by ASI Mohinder Kumar. On return to the police station, ASI Hukam Chand produced the accused, the witnesses and the sealed parcels before Azad Singh, S.H.O., Police Station, Julana, who verified the factum of recovery from the accused and presence of the witnesses and fixed has own seal of 'AS' on the parcels of the sample and the reduced charas. Thereafter, these parcels were handed back to ASI Hukam Chand, who deposited the same with MHC of the Police station. On receipt of the report Ex.PD of Senior Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban and the completion of investigation, police report under Sec. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') was filed. On these allegations charge under Sec. 20 of the Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial.

(3.) To establish the connection of the accused with the crime, the prosecution examined Ved Ram, retired Inspector (PW-1), S.I Azad Singh (PW-2), SI Mohinder Kumar (PW-3), HC Raj Kumar (PW-4), ASI Roshan Lal (PW-5), HC Jai Bhagwan (PW-6), Constable Satbir Singh (PW-7) and SI Hukam Chand (PW-8). the prosecution also tendered in evidence report Ex.PD of Senior Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban (Karnal). When examined under Sec. 313 of the Code, the accused denied the prosecution allegation completely. He further stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case but at the same time led no defence. On appraisal of the evidence, the Special Judge accepted the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as noticed above. Hence the present appeal.