MUMTAZ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Mumtaz Ahmad, has filed this appeal questioning Special Judge, Udhampur's judgment of December 1, 2008, convicting and sentencing him to imprisonment for twenty years and fine of two lac rupees, under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. FACTS: Head Constable Ghuiam Mohi-Ud-Din, along with Constables Naresh Kumar, Jagdish Singh and Mohd. Altaf of Police Station Rehambal, was on duty at Garnai Bye-pass Check Post, Naka, on January 30, 2007, when at about 4.00 p.m, he found, 95 maize cob leaves, in a Plastic Bag, which, Mumtaz Ahmad, of District Anantnag, Kashmir, residing at Thanda Paddar Zallar, Udhampur, was carrying over his shoulder. A case FIR no. 14/07 was, accordingly, registered at Police Station, Rehambal of District Udhampur under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter to be referred as, the "Act", for short, on the report of Head Constable Ghuiam Mohi-Ud-Din.

(2.) The Station House Officer seized the material on spot which weighed 4.65 kg. 100 gm was taken out of it for test purposes. The sample and the remaining material weighing about 4.65 kg was sealed separately. The sample of the seized material, on examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jammu, during the investigation, tested, CHARAS. A Final Police Report was, accordingly, laid with the Special Judge, Udhampur indicating the appellant to have committed the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the Act. Finding a case for the trial, the appellant was charged under Section 3/20 of the Act to which he pleaded 'Not Guilty" and claimed to be tried.

(3.) The prosecution examined all the twelve witnesses cited in the Final Police Report, to sustain the charge. Denying the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the appellant examined DW- Mohd. Farooq, his brother-in-law, and DW- Bashir Ahmad, his father, besides DW-Mohd. Iqbal, in defence, pleading false involvement, and projecting his innocence. The appellant's learned counsel has questioned the judgment impugned in the appeal, urging that the appellant's conviction was illegal, for the noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 50 & 57 of the Act by the investigating agency during the search and seizure of the material alleged to be a Narcotic Drug. The findings recorded by the learned Special Judge against the appellant have been questioned on the ground of mis-appreciation of evidence by the learned Special Judge.