ANGAD KESHARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant suffered conviction under section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (In short NDPS Act) on being tried by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua, in Trial No. 27 of 1999 and was sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for a term often years and was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. One lac, in default of which, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years.

(2.) SALIENT features of the prosecution case was that on 8th August, 1994, while Sunil Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police, Mohania at about 9 a.m. was going alongwith other Police Officers and also constables for carrying a raid, and happened to reach near the shop premises of the appellant in village Samuhata, he came to know about heroin being sold there. The Police came in action, pursuant to which, the shop premises of the appellant was searched out where two persons were apprehended and on search of the premises, eight packets or heroin and Rs. 80/ - were recovered from the shop. It was alleged that when the packets were weighed, it was four gms. From the search of other namely, Banarsi Mishra, one gram heroin and Rs. 60/ - was recovered from his person. The offencing articles were eventually seized by the Police in presence or the witnesses for which a seizure memo was prepared and prosecution was accordingly launched against them. In course or investigation, the Police recorded statement of witnesses, visited the place or occurrence and on its conclusion, laid charge sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial, that commenced, the State examined altogether four witnesses including Ram Pravesh Singh (P.W.1) and Rang Bahadur Singh (P.W.2), who turned volte face to the State about seizure of any incriminating article in their presence from possession of the appellant, notwithstanding their signature on the seizure memo. The witnesses admitted the raid by the Police and they also admitted their signature on the seizure memo.

(3.) THE other witness examined by the prosecution was Sunil Kumar (P.W.3), who set the Police in motion. He would reiterate his early version made before the Police about apprehension of the appellant in whose presence, there has been seizure of four packets of heroin and also money. He would also state about seizure of one packet containing heroin and also money from possession of another person for which seizure memo was prepared by him. The witness would state preparation of written report at the place or occurrence and also recording of first information report at the Police Station. The other witness examined by the State is Anant Kumar Singh (P.W.4), who happened to be the Investigating Officer of the case. He stated to have recorded statement of Sunil Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police and also visited the place of occurrence which was a grocery shop of the appellant. The witness would place on the record the report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory in respect of the contents allegedly seized from possession of the appellant and other, which eventually suggested the sample to be heroin, a derivative of morphine.