ANAND THAKUR ALIAS GUDDA Vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANAND Thakur alias Gudda stands convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 16.3.1993 under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two and a half years. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, he has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) IN short the case of the prosecution is that on 28.2.1992 at about 5.30 p.m., Sub-Inspector Naresh Pal (PW-6) accompanied by other police officials were present at the cross-section of Sectors 37-38, Chandigarh when he received a secret information that the appellant was likely to come to that side from the direction of Sector 24 and he was keeping some contraband in his possession. Prem Lal (PW-5) an independent witness was also joined by the police party. After about half an hour, the appellant was seen coming and on seeing the police party, he tried to make good his escape but was captured by the police. Since he was suspected to be in possession of some contraband, he was asked by the said Sub-Inspector if he was prepared to get his search conducted from him or would prefer to be searched by some senior officer. After he chose to be searched by some senior officer, a message was flashed to DSP (Sh. S.C. Sagar) to reach the spot and in his presence, the search was conducted. From a polythene bag which the appellant was having in his hand, 500 grams of Charas was recovered. Out of it, two samples of 20 grams each were taken and the remainder was kept in the same bag. The samples and the packet of the remaining charas were made into separate parcels and were taken into possession vide two recovery memos. A ruqa was also sent to the concerned Police Station on the basis of which a formal FIR was recorded. Other formalities were also completed at the spot itself. After the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, the appellant was challaned. He was consequently charged under Section 15 of the Act. As stated above, he now stands convicted.

(3.) THE stand taken by the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, he led no evidence in defence.