SATISH KUMAR ALIAS RISHI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.3.2004/order of sentence dated 9.3.2004 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Satish Kumar alias Rishi to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, 'the Act') and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for an identical period and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac under Section 18 of the Act and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac under Section 20 of the Act and in default of payment of the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, with a further direction that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) AS set up by the prosecution, on 6.5.1998, Raghbir Singh, Inspector/SHO of Police Station City, Jind among other police officials happened to be present at Rani Talab, Jind in Government Jeep bearing registration No. HR-31A-0281 being driven by Hari Chand Constable. The in-charge of that PCR was Balwant Singh Assistant Sub Inspector. They were chattering with each other. Meanwhile, Raghbir Singh (sic.) received a secret information to the effect that Satish Kumar alias Rishi son of Raja Ram, Caste Punjabi, resident of Vishwakarma Colony, Jind, near Hansi branch deals in the sale of contraband in his house and if the raid is conducted, huge quantity of the same could be recovered from him. The information being reliable, the police officials were divided into parties and conducted raid on the house of the accused, who on catching sight of the police parties made an attempt to escape, but he was intercepted. He was offered to have the search of his house in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or an Executive Officer by serving a notice. He opted to have the same in the presence of some Executive Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Raghbir Singh (sic.) informed Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jind on. V.T. and requested him to reach the spot along with an Executive Magistrate. After a short while, Ganga Ram, DSP accompanied by D. Suresh IAS, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jind came at the spot. During search of the house carried out in the presence of these officers, no incriminating article was recovered. On interrogation, the accused disclosed to have kept concealed opium and charas in the kitchen as well as in a room in the Cabinets specifically got manufactured by him and that the same being in his exclusive knowledge, can be got recovered by him. A photographer was called to the spot. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, he got recovered some bags of charas, opium milk and opium after removing the sunmica from his room as well as kitchen. These were got photographed. When weighed the contents of six polythene packets came to 4 kilograms 900 grams of opium. The charas when weighed was found to be 84 kilograms 350 grams. On weighment, the opium milk was found to be 2 kilograms 550 grams. One sample of 50 grams was drawn from the contents of opium. 15 samples, each weighing 10 grams were taken from the packets of charas. All these samples and the remainders were converted into parcels which were sealed with seals bearing impressions RS and GR and seized vide recovery memo. The ruqa was sent to the Police Station where on its basis, formal FIR was recorded. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused.

(3.) WHEN examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. In his defence, he examined DW1 Subhash Chander ASI, DW2 Bhagwant Sarup, DW3 Roop Basant Bachan, DW4 Paramjit Singh. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with his conviction/sentence, he has preferred this appeal.