LAWS(P&H)-2017-10-88

MANORAMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On October 28, 2017
MANORAMA DEVI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2005, vide which, the trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and the order of sentence of the even date, vide which, the appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac for committing an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act. In default of payment of fine, she was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 21/2 years more.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 17.02.2004, a police party headed by PW2 Sultan Singh, ASI was present at Jatal Road Bridge, Panipat and the appellant was seen coming from the side of City Panipat carrying a bag in her right hand. On seeing the police party, she felt perplexed and tried to take u-turn and she was apprehended. Since she was suspected as to carry some contraband in her bag, a notice under Section 50 of the Act was served upon her to which she opted to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. O.P Narwal, DSP was called at the spot and on his written direction, the bag of the appellant was searched and the same was found containing 1.5 kg of charas. Thereafter, samples of 20 gms. was taken and sealed and the residue was also sealed vide recovery memo. Thereafter, a ruqa was sent to the police station and on the basis of same a formal FIR, Ex.PG/1, was recorded against the appellant. After completing the investigation at the spot, the case property along with the accused was produced before Satbir Singh, Inspector-SHO, Police Station City, Panipat and he verified the investigation and put his seal on the case property. The sample was sent to FSL and after receiving the report, challan was presented before the trial Court.

(3.) The trial Court, framed charges against the appellant under Section 20 of the Act, vide order dated 11.03.2004.