ANAND GIRI Vs. STATE OF H.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.12.2005 of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court (Additional Sessions Judge), Mandi, whereby he has been convicted of offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/ -; in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one year. So, he has filed this appeal.

(2.) PROSECUTION case may be summed up thus. On 24.12.2003 PW -8 HC Ram Lal alongwith PW -2 LHC Narpat Ram, PW -8 -A Constable Dhan Dev and two other police officials, was present at a place called Khoti -Nala, National Highway -21, falling within the area of Police Station, Aut, when around 3.15 PM a bus bearing Registration No. HP -66 -1146 came from Kullu side, which was got stopped and checked. On checking, the appellant was found sitting on seat No.29. He had wrapped, around him, a blanked. On removal of blanket, he was found to be carrying a bag slung on his shoulder in which there was Charas, which weighed 1 Kg. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were separated. The samples and the recovered stuff were made into three separate parcels and the parcels were sealed with a seal, which produced impression of letter ˜T of English alphabet. Search and seizure memo. was drawn. A written report of search and seizure was prepared and sent to the concerned Police Station for formal registration of the case. Later, in the day, case property was deposited with PW -6 SI Dalip Singh, who was officiating as SHO of Police Station, Aut, on that day. PW -6 SI Dalip Singh affixed his own seal on the three parcels. Seal affixed by him produced impression of letter ˜K of English alphabet. One of the two samples was sent to Chemical Examiner by PW -4 MHC Raj Kumar on the next following day through PW -5 constable Sant Ram. Chemical Examiner gave report Ext. PX that the sample contained resin to the extent of 28.79%.

(3.) TRIAL Court believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.