NANAK CHAND ALIAS NANU, SON OF SHRI DESH RAJ, R/O MOHTLI RAMP, P.S. & TEHSIL INDORA, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P. Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal has been filed by the appellant, hereinafter referred to as "the accused", feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge (FTC), Kangra at Dharamshala in RBT S.C.No. 34 -I/VII/2010 decided on 9.3.2012, for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, in short 'the Act', for allegedly keeping in his possession 370 grams of Charas in the recovered stuff of 1 Kilo and 610 grams and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Detention period was ordered to be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal procedure. In short, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 3.12.2009, the Police party headed by PW15 ASI Sarabjeet Singh was present at G.T. Road, Damtal near Ram Gopal Mandir. At 9.30 p.m., they spotted the accused coming from the Railway Gate side having a polythene carry bag in his right hand. On seeing them, the accused tried to escape. On this police got suspicious and the accused was apprehended. His identity was asked. Thereafter, he was taken to traffic Police Post and the polythene bag held by him was checked. It contained 1 kilo and 610 grams contraband stuff, as such it was sealed with seal impression "B" at three places in the presence of the witnesses and taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/A. Its specimen seal was also taken on a piece of cloth Ext.PW1/F. Seal after its use was handed over to PW1 HC Ravi Kumar. NCB forms in triplicate were filled in copy of one of which is Ext.PW15/A.

(2.) AFTER completing the challan, it was presented in the Court for the trial of the accused. He was accordingly charge -sheeted, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and the accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The circumstances which were found attendant upon him were put, to which he denied. However, no evidence in defence was led.

(3.) SHRI Virender Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the accused forcefully argued that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the report of analysis is not linked with the recovered stuff, therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted.