HANSRAJ AND DEVI LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 1st July, 2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 9/2001 (Union of India v. Devilal and others) whereby the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (in short referred to as, 'NDPS Act') as under:ACCUSED HANSRAJ Under Sections 15 years R.I. And fine of 8/15 NDPS Act Rs. 1.50 lacs, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 4 years 6 months S.I. ACCUSED RANJIT Under Sections 8/29 15 years R.I. And fine of NDPS Act Rs. 1.50 lacs, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 4 years 6 months S.I. ACCUSED DEVILAL Under Sections 8/15 15 years R.I. And fine of NDPS Act Rs. 1.50 lacs, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 4 years 6 months S.I.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present case are that PW-8 D.P. Bhatnagar, Inspector Central Bureau of Narcotics filed a complaint in the court of Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jhalawar on 7.2.2001 stating, inter-alia, that on 11.11.2000 a team constituted under the leadership of PW-1 J.L. Meena, Superintendent, Central Bureau of Narcotics consisting of PW-2 A.Q. Sagar, PW-7 A.P. Choudhary, PW-4 Nisar Mohammad, PW-5 Phool Chand, PW-6 Azizullah Khan, PW-8 Dharmendra Prasad Bhatnagar, Ghasiram, Jahin Ahmed and Madan Lal to check the illicit trafficking of the contraband material. The above persons of the Narcotics Bureau Department on 11.11.2000 reached near Suliya Chowki about 12.30 p.m. (morn.) and while they were checking the vehicles, a truck bearing No. RJ 31 G 2508 came from the side of Bhawani Mandi. The truck was stopped by PW-2 A.Q. Sagar. After stopping the truck, inquiry was made by him from the driver and two persons those who were sitting in the truck. They handed over the challan builty of the truck and on seeing the challan builty a doubt arose about the authenticity of the builty. They wanted to check the truck, therefore, two independent witnesses were arranged. Thereafter inquiry was made from the accused persons infront of witnesses. They disclosed their names as Devilal, Hansraj and Ranjit, all residents of Hanumangarh. They were thereafter given notice Ex.P-1 to P-3 under Section 50 of the NDPS Act respectively to Devilal, Hansraj and Ranjit. It was stated in the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act that they had right to be searched in the presence of the Magistrate or before a gazetted officer. It was also stated in the notice that since one officer PW-1 J.L. Meena of the Narcotics Bureau was superintendent, Narcotics Bureau Department and was a gazetted officer and in case they were willing to be searched by him, search of their person and the truck could be taken in his presence. The accused gave consent for the search of their persons as well as of truck by PW-1. In the search of the truck 124 bags of doda chura powder were found below orange bags and the accused-appellants also confirmed that bags recovered contained doda chura powder. After getting the bags unloaded the same were weighed and total weight was found 4630 kg. The accused were asked as to whether they possess license for transporting the contraband material to which they denied. Two samples each of 50 gms were taken from bags and marked as A-1 to M-1. Total 26 samples were taken. The samples were sealed. Memo Ex.P-4 seizing the bags and taking the samples was prepared. Samples in the bags were marked. There weight was also mentioned in the memo Ex.P-4. Thereafter, it was signed by the accused as well as other members of the Central Bureau of Narcotics Department. Specimen seal memo Ex.P-5 was prepared in the presence of accused and other persons. All signed the memo of specimen seal. Site map Ex.P-6 was also prepared. Everything was completed by 6.30 p.m. The sealed sample packets were examined by the Opium and Alkali ed Works, Neemach (M.P.) on sending the same through PW-6 Azizullah Khan constable to find out as to whether the material contained any contraband material. 13 samples reached in laboratory properly with seals intact. On examination found containing morphine therein within the meaning of NDPS Act. Statement of accused namely Devilal Ex.P-16, Hansraj Ex.P-17 and Ranjit Ex.P-18 were recorded. The accused thereafter were arrested through memos Ex.P-7, P-8 and P-9. between 7.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. PW-2 A.Q. Sagar submitted FIR before PW-1 J.L. Meena, Superintendent, Central Bureau of Narcotics alongwith truck, accused-appellants and the memos prepared at the site. PW-1 J.L.Meena on the report registered case No. 2/2000 under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and handed over investigation to PW-8 D.P. Bhatnagar. On the basis of the statement of the accused, Gafoor Khan, Pawan Kumar, Madan Lal Bansal, Umrav Singh and Narayan Singh were given notice by the department but they did not appear. The learned trial court on filing complaint after hearing both sides framed charge under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act on 17.2.2001 to which the accused denied and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and tendered several documents. After close of the prosecution evidence in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that they were falsely implicated. The accused Devilal and Ranjit stated that they were arrested from railway station, Bhawanimandi and thy had no concern with the truck or the material recovered from the truck. They have also stated that their signatures were obtained on blank papers and their statement were not recorded by the officials of the Narcotics department. Accused Hansraj has stated that he does not know driving of the truck and he had no concern with the truck. He was arrested from the railway station, Bhanwanimandi and his signatures were obtained on the blank papers by the officials of the Narcotics department. No evidence in defence was adduced. After hearing final submissions, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the accused appellant as well as learned public prosecutor for the Union of India.