CHET RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-accused was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, for an offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter in short, the Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. One lac, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, by judgment dated November 26, 1994.

(2.) BRIEF factual matrix of the case is that on October 19, 1993, Dilbagh Rai A.S.I., C.I.A. Staff Karnal PW-3 along with Bhim Singh HC and other Police officials was present on ITI Chowk Karnal in connection with general checking. The accused happened to pass by that route. On seeing the police party standing, he tried to slip away therefrom, giving rise to suspicion, on which he was apprehended by Dilbagh Rai A.S.I. PW3. Dilbagh Rai PW3 interrogated him, expressed his suspicion that he is carrying charas and, therefore, his personal search is to be taken. He was asked whether he intends to give his personal search to some gazetted officer. Thus, on the option exercised by the accused, his personal search was taken in the presence of a gazetted officer Mr. Chanda Singh, D.S.P. PW2. The accused was carrying a bag Exhibit P-2 which contained 1Kg of Charas wrapped in a glazed paper. Out of this charas, 50 grams were taken out as a sample. The sample and the remainder were duly sealed by ASI Dilbagh Rai PW3. Usual investigation was conducted on the spot, contraband as seized, ruqa was sent to the police station and FIR was recorded. The accused was arrested and was brought to the police station along with the seized contraband. Seized contraband and the sample packet were deposited in the police station Malkhana. Thereafter sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban. As per the report of this laboratory Exhibit PD, sample was found to be that of charas. Hence, the accused was charged under section 20 of the Act.

(3.) THE accused denied the guilt and his plea is that of false implication. He adduced documentary evidence in defence.