UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH Vs. RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 2.4.2014 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Chandigarh, for enhancement of sentence.

(2.) The trial Court vide judgment dated 2.4.2014 while noticing the fact that accused remained in custody in the case from 25.2.2010 to 25.3.2010, sentenced him for the period already underegone by him along with fine of Rs.5,000/- in a case registered i.e. FIR No.77 dated 25.2.2010, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Phychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the 'NDPS Act'), Police Station 11, Chandigarh.

(3.) As per FIR, SI Rakesh Kumar along with other police officials was on patrolling duty on 25.2.2010 and holding a naka near Wine shop, Maloya, Chandigarh. At about 8.15 pm, one person, carrying a plastic bag in his right hand was coming on foot from the side of Gwala Colony, Chandigarh. Seeing the police party he tried to turn back. On suspicion that he might be carrying some stolen properety, he was apprehended by SI Rakesh Kumar with the assistance of police party. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Raju son of Sohan Lal, resident of Village Jujhar Nagar, Police Station Balongi, District Mohali. On search of the accused, 'Charas' weighing 500 grams wrapped in a polythene was recovered from the bag carried by the accused, for which he could not produce any permit or licence. SI Rakesh Kumar though tried to join some independent witnesses, but nobody came forward to depose in the case. Two samples of 100 grams each were taken out of the recovered contraband and were put in a container. The remnant quantity of 300 grams Charas in the polythene was put in a separate container. The samples as well as the remnant quantity were converted into sealed parcel and were taken into possession through separate memos attested by the witnesses. After use, the seal was handed over to Constable Manoj Kumar, SI Rakesh Kumar sent a ruqa through Constable Jaimal Singh for the registration of the FIR. Accordingly, vide separate endorsement FIR was registered in the case.