JAIVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant felt aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge in S.T. No.1 of 2007, decided on 27.4.2011, whereby he was sentenced under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short 'the Act ', for allegedly keeping in his possession 34.01% resin of Cannabis Plant in the recovered stuff of 1 Kg., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/ - , in default of payment to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The period of detention undergone by the appellant was ordered to be set off as per provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) IN short, the facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. On 7.1.2005, police party headed by PW5 ASI Sohan Singh was on patrolling duty and checking of the vehicles on Mandi -Kullu National Highway. Around 2.00 p.m. they were present at 'Khoti Nala '. In the meantime, a private bus bearing registration No.31 -3781 came from Kullu side. It was stopped for checking. PW2 Neeraj Kumar was on steering -wheel, whereas Parkash Chand was the conductor of the bus. The police started checking the bus. The appellant, hereinafter to be referred as "the accused" was sitting on seat No.39. He was holding a polythene bag Ext.P4 in his lap. The police reached near his seat and asked about his identity. Ext.P4 envelope was having the imprint of words "Haldi Ram". On checking, it was found to have contained pancake like and sphere like pieces of 'Charas '. On weighing, it turned to be 1 Kg.

(3.) TO prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He admitted that he was traveling in the said bus, which was checked by the police, but denied the recovery as alleged. He further stated that the police had obtained signatures of the witnesses on the blank papers. His defence was that when the bus was stopped it took undue time, there were 3 -4 persons who picked up altercation with the police and he was falsely implicated in the case. To prove his case he also examined DW1 Shri Ner resident of Haryana, who was allegedly traveling in the same bus. He gave absolutely a new story that when the police stopped the bus, they enquired how many persons traveling in the bus were the residents of Haryana State, on this 3 -4 persons stood -up. The accused had some arguments with the police. On having enquired about their fault, police apprehended the accused and allowed the bus to leave. According to him, he did not know the accused prior to the incident nor was a summoned witness. Then it is not understood as to how the accused was able to produce him as a witness. He did not report about the above incident if the accused was wrongly roped in the case. He also did not produce any ticket to show that he was infact traveling in the said bus on that date. He failed to name the hotel where he had stayed at Manali. Therefore, his statement could not probablise the defence version and was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. However, the learned trial Court banked upon the statements of the prosecution witnesses, thus convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.