NARENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.07.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar by which the appellants were convicted for offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each; in default, rigorous imprisonment for 2? years each, the present appeals were filed by both the accused-appellants.

(2.) In support of the appeal, learned Senior counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the prosecution case is clearly a false case and the recovery was planted. According to him, there is tampering with the evidence on record to show the clear-cut preparation of documents by scoring out the dates in the documents to show the recovery on the date of occurrence. He submitted that there are admissions given by the Investigating Officer as well as Naib Tehsildar to the effect that there was tampering of dates in the vital documents relating to the occurrence. Learned Senior counsel has taken me through the documents as well as evidence to buttress his contentions. He, then submitted that Naib Tehsildar was not competent to take search or prepare any document and therefore, the search itself has vitiated the prosecution case. Learned Senior counsel contended that there was delay of 17 days in forwarding the sample and as per the judgment rendered by this Court, the delay of 13 days was found to be fatal. He, further contended that the property was not deposited with the Illaqa Magistrate as required under Section 52(2) of the NDPS Act and that vitiate the trial.

(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the prosecution tendered its evidence and has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Naib Tehsildar is a gazetted officer as contemplated by the relevant provisions under NDPS Act and therefore, no fault can be found out with the personal search made by the gazetted officer. He, then contended that there is enough evidence on record and the conviction is required to be upheld. He prayed for dismissal of the appeals.