PRAKASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 26.3.2011, rendered by the learned Special Judge (II), Kinnaur at Rampur, H.P. in RBT No. 20 -AR/3 of 2010, whereby the appellant -accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) who was charged with and tried for offence under Section 20/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. Tara Chand was acquitted, hence this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 13.12.2008, S.I. Gurbachan Singh, P.S. Anni alongwith ASI Ludar Singh, Constable Hari Singh and Constable Bhoop Singh left Police Station Anni in connection with investigation of case FIR No. 119/08 dated 12.12.2008 and also for detection of cases under Excise Act, NDPS Act and Forest Act and for checking of traffic towards Swad, Kanda Aran side. At about 2 pm accused Prakash Chand came from Swad side holding a bag on his back. He stopped at a distance of 25 meters. He turned back and tried to escape. He was apprehended. S.I. Gurbachan Singh informed the accused that he intended to conduct his search and also apprised him of his right of being searched in the presence of the Magistrate or a gazetted officer. The accused opted to be searched by the police on the spot. S.I. Gurbachan Singh alongwith ASI Ludar Singh and Constable Bhoop singh were joined by him as witnesses. They gave their personal search to the accused. The bag was checked. It contained 6 kgs 250 gms charas. The sampling and seizure procedure was completed and NCB forms in triplicate were filled in. The 'rukka' was sent to PS Anni through Constable Hari Singh on the basis of which FIR No. 121/2008 was registered. The accused was arrested the case property was deposited in the malkhana. The case was investigated and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) MR . Manoj Pathak, Advocate, for the accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. According to him, no independent witness was associated by the prosecution, though available. On the other hand, Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Addl. Advocate General, has supported the judgment dated 26.3.2011, of the learned trial Court.