PARSHOTAM Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal, stands directed, by the appellant, against the judgment of conviction pronounced, on 23.7.2008, by the learned Special Judge Chamba Division, Chamba, H.P, in, Session Trial No. 13 of 2008, wherethrough, findings, of conviction, were returned upon the appellant, for his committing offence(s) punishable, under Section 20, of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, (i) and, also therethrough, the, accused/appellant, stood sentenced, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years, and, to pay, a, fine of Rs. 25,000/-, for, the commission, of, an offence, punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, and, in default of payment of fine, he stood further sentenced, to, undergo simple imprisonment, for, six months.

(2.) The facts relevant to the case, are, that on 1.2.2008 at about 5.30 PM at Chanju bridge, the police party headed by ASI Ashok Kumar was present in connection with patrolling duty. The police had put a picketing there at Chanju bridge. At that time, one person came there from Kuparigala side who was having a blue coloured bag on his left shoulder. On seeing the police party, the said person at once got frightened and tried to flee away. The said person was nabbed by ASI Ashok Kumar with the help of other police officials. His name and parantage was ascertained, who disclosed his name as Parshotam, son of Hari Singh. The bag which the accused was holding was checked in which pant, T-shirt and a polythene evelope of light gree colour were recovered. The polythene envelope on opening was found containing charas in the shape of sticks which on weighment found 1 kg 650 gms. Complying with the formalities, the I.O. separated two samples of 25 gms each. The bulk and the sample parcels were sealed with seal 'K'. Thereafter, the other codal formalities were also completed and the accused was arrested. After completion of the investigation and after receipt of the FSL report, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused for having committed the offence under section 20 of the Act.

(3.) The accused was charged for committing an offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stood recorded by the trial Court, wherein, he made disclosures qua his false implication. However, he did not lead any defence evidence.