DEEPAK SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE solitary appellant stands convicted for the offence under Sections 21(C) and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one year simple imprisonment. The appellant also stands convicted under Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer three months more simple imprisonment by the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case as it appears from Exhibit- 3, the self written statement of Officer-in-Charge of Sasaram Town Police Station, namely, Binod Prasad (PW 9) is that on being authorised by Additional Superintendent of Police, he conducted raid in the house of the appellant (Deepak Singh) since there was information of storage of Heroine by him. On such raid 250 gm. of Heroine was recovered from the possession of the appellant during search made in presence of the two independent witnesses PW 2 and PW 3 (turned hostile) and mother of the appellant, PW 1 (also turned hostile). The recovered article was weighted and sample was also prepared at the house of the appellant itself and subsequently the investigation was entrusted upon PW 10 (Investigating Officer), who submitted charge-sheet.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the appellant that mandatory provisions under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with which itself is sufficient to nullify the conviction and sentence. That apart, from nowhere it is evident that by what means the alleged article was weighted and sample etc. was prepared. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the point of non- compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act has nothing, but to concede, specially, in view of the decisions of Apex Court in the case of "Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat" reported in "AIR 2011 Supreme Court 77" and in the case of "Narcotics Central Bureau v. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi" reported in "AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1939". However, on the other points he tried to support the finding of the court below.