LAWS(RAJ)-2019-6-156

DHARMVEER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On June 26, 2019
Dharmveer Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Sirohi, vide judgment dtd. 3/6/2011 passed in Sessions Case No. 01/2010:-

(2.) Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Sec. 374(2) Cr.P.C.

(3.) The case pertains to recovery of 3 Kgs. Charas from a bag being carried by the appellant who was apprehended by the officials of the GRP, Abu Road on 27/11/2009 while travelling inside the Train No. 2916 UP Express at the Abu Road Railway Station. The requisite search and seizure proceedings were conducted. The bag held by the appellant was found having 3 packets of semi solid charas like contraband. Seizure Officer Shri Shamboo Singh, SHO, P.S. GRP, Abu Road (P.W.16) performed all the requisite formalities, summoned independent motbirs and effected the search and seizure vide Seizure Memo (Ex.P-6). Two samples each were collected from the three packets of the suspected contraband and were sealed. The accused appellant was arrested. The SHO returned to the police station and registered FIR No. 70/2009 against the accused-appellant for the offence under Sec. 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. On the basis of the information supplied by the accused, the co-accused Amir Bhai, being the supplier of the contraband, was apprehended and a charge-sheet was filed against both the accused for the offences under Ss. 8/20 and 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The trial Court framed charges against both the accused for the offences as above. Both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examination as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 62 documents to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, the accused denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. 6 documents were exhibited, however, no oral evidence was led in defence.