LALLAN RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE solitary Appellant along with his co -convict Ram Bahadur Soni were put on trial in Tr. No. 14/2008 / 13/2008 arising out of Daraunda P.S. Case No. 33 of 2006 by being charged under Sections 16 and 20(b)(ii)(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the learned Sessions Jude, Siwan and by judgment dated 6th February, 2010 were found guilty of committing the said offences. After hearing the convicts on sentence, the learned judge directed by the order of sentence dated 8.2.2010 to suffer RI for ten years as also to pay a fine of rupees one lac. There was no sentence prescribed in case the Appellant defaulted in making payment of fine. The Appellant Lallan Rai assails the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed upon him by preferring this appeal.

(2.) INFORMANT Vijay Kumar ( P.W. 8) along with his patrolling party, was returning from patrolling duties and when he reached at a particular place, he found a jeep coming, which was bearing registration number HR -29/2708. As soon as the police party attempted to approach the jeep, four persons jumped out of the vehicle, out of whom two ran away and two persons were chased and caught with the help of villagers. The jeep was searched and it was found containing a box inside it and on further probe of the box, the same was found containing seventy packets of ganja, weighing 80 Kgs. The recovered ganja was seized in presence of P. Ws 1 and 2 and the two persons, who were caught, were arrested. The seized ganja and the arrested persons were brought to the police station and P.W. 8 submitted his self -statement (Ext.2) and on that basis of Ext.4 (FIR) was drawn up and investigation was taken up by P.W. 9 who deposed that he inspected the place of occurrence, drew sample of recovered article and forwarded the same through special messenger to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis and report and after finding the material sufficient, sent up the two accused including the present Appellant for trial, which ended in their conviction and sentence as mentioned above.

(3.) SECTION 52 of the Act requires that as soon as any narcotic substance or drug is seized, that has to be delivered to the Officer Incharge of the nearest police station. Section 55 of the Act requires that as soon as the seized substance is delivered to the Officer inchage of the police station, he shall secure the same by properly sealing it and so that the same was not pilfered or substituted. Thereafter, he shall enter the same into a register and to allow the officer who had handed the substance over to him to draw samples in his presence. It is further required by that particular provision that as soon as the sampling is done and it is put inside any container or packet, the same has to be sealed both by the officer who seized the substance as also the Officer incharge of the police station. The purpose of putting down the above safeguards by laying down the provision of Section 55 of the Act is to eradicate any chance of pilferage of substance or substitution of the same as appears indicated also by Section 52A(1) of the Act. The same underlying principle is also behind the other part of the provision contained under Section 55 of the Act, which requires the sealing of the sampled articles both by the officer who had seized the substance as also the Officer Incharge of the police station who had received the possession of the substance after its seizure. Both the officers are required to put their own respective seals over the container of the sampled substance. The purpose of doing so, as I have just pointed out, is to ensure that the same substance is sampled and properly sealed and thus, the claim or chances of any other substance being sampled is eradicated.