ARJUN RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA (NCB)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.7.2002 passed by Special Judge, N.D.RS. Cases, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 28/2000 whereby learned Special Judge, (for short "the trial court" hereinafter) convicted appellant Arjun Ram for the offences under Sections 8/21, 8/23 and 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act" hereinafter) and awarded sentence of 10 years' R.l. on each count with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's R.l.

(2.) The prosecution story as set up by the respondent before the trial court is that on 12.3.2000 PW-5 Rajendra Singh, Regional Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Jodhpur received a secret information Ex.P/19 whereby he was informed that some packets of heroin is (are) likely to be passed through the border. On receipt of information Ex.P/19 he constituted a team and proceeded to the spot mentioned in the information. When they reached border near pillars No. 905 and 907, the BSF personnel of 94 battalion BSF were present there. The team constituted by PW-5 was added (headed) by PW-6 Suresh Trivedi and was supervised by PW-3 Narendra Singh. At the border between pillar No. 905 and 907 they found four plastic bags containing 15 packets each. On checking it was found that those 60 packets contained heroin. The seizure party undertook the proceedings. PW-6 Suresh Trivedi seized the contraband articles. After some time the BSF personnel caught appellant Arjun Ram from his field and brought him to the spot. He was interrogated by PW-6 Suresh Trivedi on the spot. It is alleged that PW-6 Suresh Trivedi issued a notice E*.P 20 to the appellant for his appearance before Intelligence Officer, Narcotics .Control Bureau, Jodhpur (for short "NCB" hereinafter) on 13.3.2000 at 8.00 AM at company head quarter, 94 battalion, BSF, Nayatala, Barmer. PW-6 recorded statement under Sec. 67 of the NDPS Act Ex.P/21 on 13.3.2000 and on the basis of the said statement Ex.P/21 the accused appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/22 on 13.3.2000 at 1500 hours (3.00 PM). After completion of investigation the respondent filed complaint against the present appellant in the trial court. The charges for offences under Sections 8/21, 8/23 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act were framed. The respondent produced as many as 10 witnesses and the documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/38 were exhibited. Accused made statement under Sec. 313 Cr.PC. In defence, appellant came up with the case that his thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers and in this regard he had made an application Ex.D/1 before the trial court retracting the statement Ex.P/21. On appreciation of evidence produced by the respondent the trial court found the accused appellant guilty for the offences noticed above and he was accordingly convicted and sentenced as stated above. Hence this appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the judgment and order of the trial court. I have carefully scanned and scrutinised the evidence on record.