NURUL HAQUE Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal challenges the Judgment and Sentence dated 31 -03 -2015 meted out by the Court of the Special Judge (SADA), South Sikkim at Namchi, vide which the Appellant was convicted and Sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) year and a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, under Section 9(d) of the Sikkim Anti Drugs Act, 2006 (for short "SADA") with a default clause of imprisonment for 6 (six) months; for the offence under Rule 17(1) of the Sikkim Anti Drugs Rules, 2007 (for short "SADR") read with Section 14 of the SADA, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/ - (Rupees fifteen thousand) only, also with a default stipulation, in Sessions Trial (SADA) Case No. 21 of 2014. The Sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) WHILE assailing the impugned Judgment and Sentence, the argument advanced by the Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Appellant is that, besides the Learned Trial Court failing to appreciate the facts, circumstances and statement of the witnesses, it also failed to appreciate the legal principles in a proper perspective in that the mandatory provisions contemplated under Section 24 of the SADA to extend the option to the accused of being searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer was not complied with by the Prosecution. It was also argued that the evidence of P.W.3, Manoj Gupta and P.W.4 Milan Chettri, with regard to the time of alleged seizure of the controlled substances are at variance with that in the Seizure Memo. The Learned Trial Court erred in opining that the witnesses were confused about the date and that in the absence of a suggestion of foul play, this aspect could be overlooked. The Vehicle Entry Register maintained at the Melli Check Post, South Sikkim, was not produced before the Learned Trial Court to establish the time of Entry of the Motor Cycle into the State of Sikkim through the Melli Check Post. It was also put forth that the photographs of the Appellant and his Motor Cycle being M.O. III (collectively) were taken during the day contrary to the time shown on Exhibit 2, the FIR, being 2230 hours as the time of occurrence. Hence, in view of the anomalies in the Prosecution case, the impugned Judgment and Order of Sentence dated 31 -03 -2015 be set aside.

(3.) THE rival contentions put forth were duly considered by me as were the documents, the evidence and the impugned Judgment.