SUDARSHAN BAKAYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS -Sudarshan Bakaya aged 80 years and his wife Pushpa Devi alias Moong Phali aged 70 years (hereinafter to be referred as 'accused') stand convicted under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (herein - after for short to be referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay a find of Rs. 1 lac each, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. They are stated to be in custody since the date of their conviction and also remained in custody as under trial prisoner for about 13 -14 months.

(2.) IN brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.09.1997, PW Mohd. Hussain Malik, the then Dy. SP (Bakshi Nagar Range) was on patrol duty, when at about 6 p.m. he received an information to the effect that both the accused who used to indulge in purchase and sale of charas, were keeping some charas in their residence. Finding the information to be reliable, he requisitioned the services of PW Kailash Chibber, the then SHO Police Station Bakshi Nagar and the police officials of Police Post Sarwal. He then raided the house of the accused in presence of two independent witnesses namely Amrit Lal and Ravinder Paul, in which one kilogram and 50 grams of charas kept in the polythene from the bed of the accused was recovered. 50 grams of charas was extracted as sample and was sealed. The case of the prosecution is that it was handed over to the SHO at the spot. Recovery memo EXPW -MH was prepared in this regard by Mohd. Hussain Malik Dy. SP, which was also counter signed by the aforesaid two independent witnesses. A docket was sent to the Police Station Bakshi Nagar from the spot itself for the registration of a case, where upon a formal F.I.R. No. 238/1997 under Section 20 of the Act was registered against the accused. The sample was sent to the FSL and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented against both the accused under Section 20 of the Act, whereupon they were charged for the said offence.

(3.) SO far as aforesaid two independent witnesses are concerned, it is admitted before me by Mr. P. C. Sharma, learned State counsel and is otherwise borne out from record also that Ravinder Paul was given up as his whereabouts were not known, whereas Amrit Lal was given up as not necessary.