LAWS(HPH)-2014-7-37

PANNA LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Decided On July 09, 2014
PANNA LAL Appellant
V/S
PANNA LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they all arise, from a common judgment rendered by the learned Special Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2010, whereby, the learned trial Court convicted the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/ - for the commission of offence under Section 20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

(2.) THE prosecution story, is, that on 26.5.2010 at 11.00 a.m. the police officials, namely, HC Chaman Lal alongwith Const. Subhash, Const. Pushap Raj and Const. Ved Vyas of Police Station, Bhunder, were on patrol duty at Chheunr Badogi. Further, at about 12.30 p.m., the police party, while being present at Chheunr Badogi road, noticed the accused coming from the village path. He on seeing the police party got perplexed and attempted to flee from the spot. On suspicion of the police party having been aroused he was chased. On chase he was apprehended. The place from where he was nabbed was a secluded place and no one traversed through the path at that time. Subsequently, the I.O. joined constable Pushap Raj and PW -6 Subhash as witnesses and name and address of the accused was ascertained. The accused was apprised about his legal right to be searched either in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, under memo Ext. PW -6/A. The accused consented to give his search to the police present at the spot. Thereafter I.O. gave his personal search to the accused vide memo Ext. PW -6/B. The accused was searched and bag was found concealed by the accused below his left arm pit under the coat worn by him. On opening the bag charas in the shape of balls was found wrapped in transparent polythene wrappers. The charas, so recovered, was weighed on electronic weighing scale and it was found to be 1.200 kg. in weight. The charas was repacked in the same manner and kept in cloth parcel and sealed with six seals of seal -H. The I.O. also filled in NCB form in triplicate, one of which is Ext. PW -1/C and drew specimen impression of seal H on cloth pieces, one of which was proved as Ex. PW -6/C and seal after its use was handed over to PW -6. Thereafter, the case property was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW -6/D and one copy of the same was supplied to the accused. Thereafter, I.O. prepared Ruqa Ext. PW -3/A and the same was handed over to PW -6 with directions to deliver the same at Police Station, Bhunter. The officiating SHO ASI Jaspal Singh, after receipt of Ruqa Ext. PW -3/A, registered F.I.R. Ext. PW -3/B and made endorsement Ext. PW -3/C on the Ruqa. The case file was handed over to Const. Subhash Chand with the direction to carry the same to the I.O. The accused was arrested vide memo Ext. PW -7/B and information qua his arrest was given to his nephew as desired by him. The I.O. also prepared site plan Ext. PW -7/A and recorded statements of witnesses. The personal search of the accused was also taken vide memo Ext. PW -6/D. On return to the Police Station I.O. produced the accused and the case property before officiating SHO PW -3, who resealed the parcel Ex. P -1 with six impressions of letter T and also filled in relevant columns of NCB form and put facsimile of seal T on NCB form. He also drew sample seal of T, one of which is proved as Ext. PW -3/D and thereafter the case property alongwith NCB form sample seals H and T were deposited with MHC.

(3.) THE trial court charged the accused for his having committed offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed trial. On closure of proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused person was given an opportunity to adduce evidence, in, defence, and he chose to adduce evidence in defence.