LAKSHMI GIRI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 20(b)(i)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years in G.R. Case No. 3 of 2005/Tr. Case No. 1 of 2005 passed by Sri Ajeet Kumar Ojha, Additional Sessions Judge, I, Madhubani.

(2.) The prosecution case, as alleged in the written report by Sub Inspector of Police, Seema Surakchha Bal, Jai Prakash Thapalyal that he along with Head Constable, Ratan Bahadur Rai, P.W. 4, Lance Nayak, Gopal Gohai, P.W. 9, Constable Pranav Handique, P.W. 7, Constable Vibhash Rai, P.W. 6, Constable Anil Senapathi, P.W. 8, Constable Barun Prajatpati, (not examined), Constable Babu Ram Thakur, P.W. 5, Constable, Ramjee Das, (not examined), Constable Rupun Barman (not examined) at about 12.30 p.m. on 04.02.2005 was on patrolling duty on Jainagar Madhubani road then found a person along with a bag near the petrol pump. On seeing the police the person started fleeing away and then he was chased and caught and disclosed his name as Lakshmi Giri (the appellant) and on search from his bag 2.700 Kg of charas was found and the seizure list was prepared before the witness, Ram Lalit Paswan, P.W. 2, Babulal Paswan, P.W. 3, and Ganesh Paswan, P.W. 1, with regard to the seized article the appellant, Lakshmi Giri did not produce any paper. On the basis of written report of Jai Prakash Thapalyal, the informant, first information report was drawn and after investigation charge sheet submitted, cognizance taken and subsequently the charge was framed for offence under Section 20(b)(i)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

(3.) During the trial ten witnesses were examined, who are P.W. 1, Ganesh Paswan, P.W. 2, Ram Lali Paswan, P.W. 3, Babulal Paswan, P.W. 4, Ratan Bahadur Rai, P.W. 5, Baburam Thakur, P.W. 6, Bibhas Rai, P.W. 7, Pranab Handique, P.W. 8, Anil Senapati, P.W. 9, Gopal Gohai and P.W. 10, Abdul Matin. However, the informant and the investigating officer of the case, has not been examined. The documentary evidence is Exhibit 1, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, which has been formally proved by P.W. 10, who is a taid. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on behalf of the parties, and taking into consideration the respective submissions the learned trial Court convicted the appellant, as stated above.