BHIKHAR RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOLE appellant, Bhikhar Ram who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 29 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated

(2.) 09.2011 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years as well as fined Rs.1,00,000/ - in default thereof to undergo R.I. for 2 years and 6 months vide order of sentence dated 14.09.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge -Ist -cum -Special Judge, NDPS, East Champaran, Motihari in ND P.S. Case No. No.16 of 2007 filed instant appeal. 2. On getting confidential information with regard to smuggling of Ganja on 20.02.2007, PW -3, Irfan Ahmad a member of preventing team of custom along with others including two independent witnesses rushed to Nanaura village and in the morning of 21.02.2007 at about 05:45 A.M. they intercepted one tractor along with trailer laden with stone chips. During course thereof, the other manage to escape while one was apprehended who disclosed his identity as an appellant, Bhikhar Ram and further shown his status as labour -cum -cleaner. It has further been disclosed that on query, appellant had disclosed that trailer contains Ganja having concealed beneath stone chips illegally carried from Nepal. Then, thereafter, the tractor along with trailer was taken to Custom Office, Motihari with the help of local driver and was searched out and during course of which 130 packets of Ganja weighing 1100 Kg. appertaining to Rs.2,20,000/ - was seized therefrom. It has further been disclosed that neither tractor nor trailer contained registration number. On the basis of the aforesaid search memo appellant was forwarded to custody. After investigation complaint was filed by PW -3 on 31 -07 -2007 where upon fifteen witnesses were examined along with different exhibits and then thereafter appellant met with ultimate result, subject matter of instant appeal.

(3.) WHILE assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, it has been submitted on behalf of appellant that apart from inconsistencies persisting in the prosecution case, the learned lower court overlooked the same and in mechanical way had convicted the appellant. It has further been submitted that at an initial stage charge was framed against the appellant under Section 20(b), 29 of the NDPS Act, however got acquitted under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the learned lower court should have considered that in the aforesaid background neither there was reliable evidence to identity the appellant as an abettor or conspirator. It has further been submitted that from the evidence of the witnesses, it is evident that they are not at all consistent over timing of conduction of raid as well as manner whereunder appellant was apprehended. Then it has been submitted that during conduction of trial, the prosecution had flouted mandatory provision of NDPS Act as a consequence thereof, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned lower court happens to be unjustifiable.