ASHOK KUMAR BOSE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant, Ashok Kumar Bose having been found in possession of heroin, was put on trial to face charge under Section 20(b)(ii) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The learned trial Court having found the appellant guilty for the said charge, convicted him and consequently sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. one lakh.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 29.7.1996 at about 12.30 p.m., a secret information was received by Sub -Inspector, Shiv Prakash Kumar (PW 2) that one person near a water tank at Purana Bazar, has been selling some narcotic substance and there young persons have assembled there for purchasing the same. On getting such information it was entered into the station diary and then he along with other police personnel, namely, Kanchan Kumar (PW 1), Sheikh Sabir (PW 3), Raji Ahamad (PW 4) and Constable Raj Narain Singh proceeded to that place and when they reached that place at about 1 p.m. the young boys who had assembled over there on getting sight of the police started fleeing away. However, one person was apprehended, who reportedly had indulged himself in selling the narcotic substance. On being quizzed he disclosed his name as Ashok Kumar Bose (appellant) and in presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Gopal Sao (PW 2) and Suresh Prasad (PW 7) search of his person was made and on being searched 12 packets each containing 1/2 gm. of some substance of brown colour suspected to be brown sugar and also a bag containing 5 gms. of brown sugar were recovered and said Ashok Kumar Bose disclosed to, them that the substance recovered is brown sugar, which is being sold to the persons. Said Ashok Kumar Bose failed to produce any licence and as such the appellant was found in possession of a narcotic substance in contravention of the provisions of the Narcotici Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act.

(3.) AFTER completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge -sheet against the appellant. Accordingly the cognizance of the offences was taken and in due course when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions the charges were framed, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.