GOPI SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned judgment and order dtd. 19/9/2022/23/9/2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa in connection with Special Case No. 7 of 2017, arising out of Mahishi P.S. Case No. 247 of 2017, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_41_LAWS(PAT)8_2023_1.html</FRM>

(2.) A self statement of the Station House Officer (SHO) (informant), Mahishi recorded on 27/11/2017, is the basis for registration of Mahishi P.S. Case No. 247 of 2017 disclosing commission of the offences punishable under Sec. 20(b)(ii) (C) and Sec. 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act in short) which finally gave rise to Special Case No. 7 of 2017 in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa. It is the prosecution's case as disclosed in the said self statement that the informant received a secret information on 26/11/2017 at 8:10 pm from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saharsa that three sons of one Sonelal Sah namely Ram Pravesh Sah, Ramdhan Sah and this appellant were indulging in illegal trade and smuggling of ganja. Acting on the said secret information a team was constituted headed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saharsa, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Saharsa and other officials and police officials/personnel to conduct a raid. The house of Sonelal Sah was thereafter searched in the said night leading to recovery of 4 quintals 690 grams of ganja and a cash of Rs.1,36,495.00. Two individual witnesses namely Rustam Ali (PW-4) and Md. Haidar Ali (PW-5) were requested to remain present during the course of search and seizure. A seizure list was prepared at the spot on which all the officials and independent witnesses put their signatures. The appellant was arrested on the spot in the house of Sonelal Sah, according to the prosecution's case. Based on the allegation of the aforesaid effect, the FIR was registered against this appellant, Ram Pravesh Sah and Ramdhan Sah. It was not the prosecution's case that Ram Pravesh Sah and Ramdhan Sah were present in the house at the time of search and seizure of the house. The appellant, according to the prosecution's case was present in the house.

(3.) We will be dealing with relevant evidence in this regard while considering the depositions of the witnesses. We however, consider it apt to notice at this juncture itself that there is consistent evidence on record to the effect that this appellant resided in a house different from the house where the search was conducted. We also take note of the fact at the outset that we have not seen any evidence as regards the manner in which sample from the recovered articles was drawn for the purpose of the same being sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. Even according to the prosecution's case the sample, in whatever manner drawn, was dispatched to the Forensic Science Laboratories at Patna and Kolkata on 13/2/2018 two and half months after seizure. The sample was received in the FSL Patna eight days thereafter, on 21/2/2018, which was sent through a chaukidar, a special messenger, according to the prosecution's case.