HARENDRA RAUT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The solitary appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction for the offence under sections 20(ii)C, 22(c) and 23(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years for all the three offences besides a fine of Rupee one lac for the offence under section 23(c), in default of which further R.I. for one year as awarded on 22nd December, 2011 by Ist Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Trial No. 21 of 2005 arising out of Nautan P.S. Case No. 50 of 2005. The prosecution case as stated in Ext. 3 the self written statement of the Informant C.W. 1 dated 30th March, 2005 is that he while returning after concluding investigation of another case through police jeep being driven by P.W. 3 at about 16.30 hours he found one Rajdoot motorcycle coming from opposite direction carrying one pillion rider in between there was a gunny bag. On doubt signal was given to stop but they tried to escape However, the Informant jumped and get hold of pillion rider, consequently bag also fell down and came under his control. However, driver of the bike succeeded to escape. The apprehended pillion rider disclosed his name and also in the bag he was carrying Ganja after obtaining from one Kishori Sah of Hisua Bazar, Nepal and was carrying for one Sudama Yadav of district Gopalganj and he further disclosed about driver of the bike, brother-in-law (Sala) of his villager Manoj Singh. No valid paper was produced for such contraband articles. However, on the bag with red ink name of Sudama was inserted which was seized in presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Gagan Ram and Sukai Ram respectively P.WS 2 and I giving smell of Ganja. It was in 14 packets each of 6 kgs.. Seizure list was prepared, copy handed over to the apprehended accused-appellant and everything was produced to the Officer Incharge, who on getting information already arrived at the spot. The case was investigated by P.W. 4 who after obtaining report from the Forensic Science Laboratory and concluding the investigation submitted charge sheet.

(2.) Initially on 14.11.2005 trial for the offences under sections 20 and 23 of the N.D.P. Act commenced before Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1 at Bettiah where two witnesses, namely, Karim Mian and Salim Mian were examined and declared hostile. Subsequently, case was transferred in routine way to the court where trial concluded and after examination of four prosecution witnesses and one court witness (Informant) charge afresh was framed indicating commission of offence under sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 22(c) and 23(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and thereafter one single witness Karim Mian, who had earlier been examined as P.W. 1 before the court where trial initially commenced was examined but in defence there is neither any oral or documentary evidence. On consideration of the materials the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there is absolutely no material against the appellant who has not only been falsely implicated with ulterior motive but also non of the mandatory requirement as contemplated under N.D.P.S. Act has been complied with, but ignoring every such thing the appellant has been convicted.