JAGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., convict Jagat Ram has assailed the judgment dated 08.08.2006, passed by Special Judge(I), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Sessions Case No.46- P/VII/2005/Sessions Trial No.18 of 2006, titled as State Versus Jagat Ram, whereby he stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that on 26.04.2005, ASI Onkar Singh (PW.11), Incharge, Police Post Panchrukhi, received a secret information that accused was indulging in the trade of a contraband substance. Accordingly, he constituted a raiding party by associating independent witnesses Baldev Singh (PW.1) and Smt. Babita (PW.4). Secret information was reduced into writing and sent to the S.D.P.O. Palampur. The shop of the accused was raided and from the counter, one packet of cigarette, containing charas was recovered which upon weighment was found to be 170 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn. Sample as also the bulk parcel were sealed separately with the seal having impression 'S'. On the basis of Rukka (Ex.PW.2/A), so carried by HC Kushal Kumar (PW.2), FIR No.110/05, dated 26.04.2005 (Ex.PW.2/B), came to be registered at Police Station, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., under the provisions of Section 20 of the NDPS Act, against the accused. With the completion of proceedings on the spot, including filling up of NCB form (Ex.PW.9/B), case property was deposited with MHC Kehar Singh (PW.5), who through C. Raj Kumar (PW.6) sent the sample for chemical analysis to CTL Kandaghat. Report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex.PW.10/A) was taken on record. With the completion of investigation, which revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

(3.) The accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the NDPS Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.