JAISHREE SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE solitary appellant Jaishree Sah was charged of the offence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act(`the Act' for short) on account of being found in possession of 25 grams of heroin, recovered from one of the pockets of his pant kept in polythene sachet. He was put on trial by the learned Special Judge-I, Kaimur at Bhabua in Trial No.36 of 2002 and by judgment dated 21.04.2009 he was found guilty of committing the offence. After being heard on sentence on 27.4.2009, the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years as also to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, else to suffer additional term of rigorous imprisonment for one year. THE appellant appeals against the judgment and order of sentence.

(2.) P.W.1 is the informant of the case and he stated in his report that while he was near the Block Development Office, he found that a person seeing the police started running away, who was chased and caught at the very gate of the office. He was given option that if he so liked he might be searched either before a Magistrate or a gazetted officer upon which it is stated that the appellant expressed no objection, if the informant himself searched his person. On search, as just narrated, 25 grams of heroin kept in a polythene sachet was recovered from one of the pockets of his pant.

(3.) THE evidence of the prosecution comes from three witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.1, 4 and 5. P.W.1 is the informant and P.W.4 and 5 are the constables who were accompanying the informant in his team of police party while he was on patrolling duty. THE evidence of three witnesses proved the fact that the appellant was caught by the informant and was also searched whereupon some articles were recovered from one of the pockets of his pant. THE remaining two witnesses, namely, P.Ws.2 and 3 are witnesses to seizure but they do not appear supporting the search and seizure in their presence though they have admitted the fact that the seizure memo was bearing their signatures. Thus, the court is satisfied on the evidence about the search of the person of the appellant and recovery of certain articles from one of his pockets.