GIAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Judge, whereby he has been convicted of an offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, for allegedly possessing 10 Kilograms of Charas at a place called Koti Bridge, within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Sadar Chamba, on 19.12.2001 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three years.

(2.) Prosecution version is that on 19.12.2001, a police party headed by ASP Gyaneshwar Singh and comprising as its other members Inspector Kulwant Singh, HC Ajit Singh, HC Surinder Kumar, LHC Kartar Singh and constable Manohar Lal went towards Koti Bridge and when they reached near a temple, the appellant was found sitting by the road side and on seeing the police, he tried to flee along a foot path. He was chased and overpowered. He was carrying a bag on his shoulder, which was searched and on search Charas in the form of balls and sticks packed in a plastic bag was found. On being weighed, Charas was found to be ten kilograms. Two samples, each weighing 20 grams, were separated. The samples and the bulk Charas were made up into separate parcels and the same were sealed with a seal, which produced the impression of letter 'R' of English Alphabet. Search and seizure memo was prepared. A report was sent to the Police Station for formal registration of the case. Appellant was arrested. Grounds of arrest were intimated to him in writing. One of the two samples was sent to the Chemical Laboratory for analysis. The Chemical Examiner reported that the contents were of Charas.

(3.) The defence plea is that the appellant was forcibly taken away from his residence, which is at a distance of 50 Kilometres from the spot at midnight, despite resistance by inmates of the house and other residents of the village and in that process even the cap of one of the police officials fell on the spot, which the defence produced in the trial court during the course of the trial as Ex. P-1. It is alleged that no Charas was recovered from the appellant and that a false case has been foisted on him.