:C-22 ^TT^T^T w\^ ^^{ s»)^i<=h <ii^a h ~^3t ^IHH^ ^Tl1<1^<o, f®|<!ll<iy 3ni^r 'V^K ^A^o.ss's/or' •^ 200 ^W^l 5b^l<?b (c)<-)<yr' ^flF^T ^dIW ^(^a cr»i^f<yt<Ilrt ^w^S ^ F€<<^ <Fn^i< ^ 3?lf^FT 3TT^T SB: HON»BLBSHRI DHIRBN1 APPELLANT 1. MOJ age RESPONDENT 2-11-200T VBRSUS Stati Shri Yogeshwar SharaiaJ SliriSandeep Yadav, DyJ 2, This criininal appeal conviction aad order of sentej MISHRA.J. ammad Akbar, Son of Mustak Kb.aQ., Pl about 22-23 years, Occupation- Suxi|io Driver, R/o- Behiad Paadari Sabji Ma^ket, Gaxidhiaagaj:, near Jayaram Kir^na shop, P.S. Civil Lio.e, Raipur (CG) 2. _Aia4t Kirmajr Dhruv, Son of DeenuiRm., age^i about 22-23 y^ars, Occupatk»n-Taxl Dri^er, Local Address- Bhatagaon, P.S. Kiiijadh, Distt. Dhanitari, present Ad^ress- Ramesh Kiraiia shop, near Jyoti STQ, Paadari, P.S. Civil Liae, Raipiir (CG) of CfaJiattj^igarh Advocate for the appeUaiits. Govt, Advocate for the State. is directed agaiast the judginent of ace dated 21st June, 2005 passed in Special Case No. 60/2004 v^hereby leamed Special Court under N.D.P.S. Act, Bastar at Jagdaltj Section 20ft>)(u)C) of Narcotic] Act, 1985 (for short hereiaaftei ^ur lias convicted tilie appeUaiits under Drugs aiid Psychotropic Substaaces referred to as fhe Act) aiid sentenced to midergo R.I. for 10 .years ^ith a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and m default ofpaynient offine, to fi|irtlier undergo RJ. for 5 years, 3. The case of tlie prosec|ution is that on 14th October, 2004 around 5.15 a.in., fhe Assistailit Sub Inspector Mohaa Patel received a secret iaformation that Ambassador Car from Sukma |caanabis is bemg trmisported by ^Jagdalpur via Keshiur. After recordtag 37I^T^T 'f^ti^sn^T ^*iict) ^fia '^'^^TFn^R, ^Ti1<i<i(o, f®Kni<iy ^^t£l^^ ^iW^i 5b*licb '^f^S' n^r <^i^?i ^<nw «f^a •'2r iavestigation without obtamtQ^ <»»^I<n<i1i*ii*i<riYTt f^<<! <f^i<^i< t? 3?rf^W 3iff^T tihe toformation and further re^ordiag fhe satisfaction to proceed for necessary warraaf, fhe Investigatiag Officer proceeded to Parpa N^ka, started checkiag all the vehicles aad arouiid 10.00 a.m.wyileAmbassadorcarm which the appellaats werc present aad t|ie appeliaat No. 1 Mohammad Akbar was driviag fhe care, was iateatcepted. After observuig ffae procedure prescribed by the Act, the ^ehicle was searched after obtainiag consent from the accused pei}sons aad in the said vehicle 4 bags iaside fhe car aad 3 bags iasi(j[e the dickey contamuig caanabis like substance were seized aad preMminaiy test, the seized Weighinent was done and it w] each bag aad after makmg hoBJ fnio 25 gm aad fhus 14 packe^ recoveiy ineiao was prepared, On ardcle was foiind to be caanabis. as found that the bags contam 35 kg aad 400 gm of cannabis. 7 s^inples of 50 gin were taken out froni articles were given for safe cu^tody m fhe Malkhaaa. After recording F.LR. both l3ie accused per^oiis were arrested. Tfae mformatton about fhe ojBence was given to sent for niedical examination fhe sample was of caiinabis| charge sheetwas filed. 4. Durmg tdal, 7 witnesse^ against theni ia ffae prosecuti<| ^ogenous mixture, fhey were separated [s of saiaple were prepared. The seized ^uperior officers aad the samples were Lhrough the Superintendent of PoUce, Jagdalpui' to F.S.L., Raipur wt^o confirmed vide report of Ex. P-1 that After completing Uie mvestigation, were exaimned, fhereafter stateraent of accused was recorded ia wtjich they denied fhe evidence available n case aad further pleaded fhat they A__ l^ S^T-^T f<r1l5b ^^ 5^4-iict> -yf^a '^Sf ^liqi^^ ^Tll^^Ko, fcKTlKiy 3nt?r xra^ ). JS-S3/^3~- ^..^..(c.>...>..?.y.:....T..^...-..^ 200 ^w^i 5b*lici> [c(<b^ 31T^T ^<TTW «f^a -s- were staadirLg in fhe bus stan^ bus for TeUmarenga when fhey| to the poUce station and fheii| papers and. fhey have been fals^ fact seized fipm them. 5, Leanied counsel fortlie 4 witaess No. 3 Gaagaraai who nieino, seizure nieino aad mvestigation has stated fhat 4 7.30 to 9.30 a.m. that som^ liowever, they have sigued th^ which is shown to be prepared| the seal bv which fhe conti-abatid to F.S.L., Raipur as per Sectio^ px. P-2 inentions that fhe both the accused persons wh^ aifected only &oin one uidividu|al. of maiidatory provision of Sedlion Section 50 of fhe Act, appellanf thev caa be searched before a N 6. On the ofher haad, learn^d the impugned judgment. 7. Conviction of fhe appeU^iit Investigatbig OfBcer P,W. Moh^ii deposed the steps taken by t^ cM^(<n<flt ^w^S "9 f^l<l <P»i<^i< '^3?P<P:f3TT^T ofJagdalpur aad enqiuring about a |were apprehended by police aiid took signatures were obtained ia various bly implicated and no caiinabis was in Ippellant submits that the prosecution [s fhe witness of Paachnaaia, recoveiy |ofher docunients prepared durmg |e was iafonned by fhe police aroiind persons are goiag with cannabis secret iaformation inemo of Ex. P-2 at 5.45 am. There is no evidence that aad samples were sealed were sent 55 of the Act. The recovery ineaio of was seized froin flie custody of ch is not possible as seizure cao. be al. Thus fhere is total non-compliaace 55 ofthe Act In tlie notice under :s were not appnsed of fheir right fhat lagistrate or gazetted officer. ?d counsel for flie State has supported conti'abaad is based on the stateinent of the Patel, Asstt. Sub Inspector who has im after receiviag secret taformation t- ^T^T^T 'f^ri^F^n^T 5t»*ii<sn ^f^a ^? v<ii^i<yi^ ^Ti1<i^(o, (c«ni<i^< _....^A.^SS/°L ^. ..^..^.../.../...................^ ^^ ^J *<IN<vtT 5b*1icb "Isrc^T' <^1^1 ^^<11<9< ^f^a -4 fhat caiinabis is beiag traa$ recorded the saaie aad alsd obtaiaiag warraat as the a^ contrabaiid if fae waists tim< proceeded fqr Parpa Naka fhirotigh Parpa Naka aiid aaibassador car ia which fhe iiiterrogation, they told fheir notice under Section 50 of fhel they were searched, however their persons aad thereafter fh^ vehicle Uie contrabaD.d was on prelimiiiary mvestigation. 4 bags, fhe same were duly ^one vide Ex. P-5. The seal use<|l Paachnama ofEx. P-12. The of witaesses Bholarain and Gfc dumig iiivestigation bear fheir stated fhat he was apprised canyiag caiinabis is Itkely to| passed froin Parpa Naka, it wi said vehicle, 7 bags of cannabjis recovered. So far as fhe discrepaiicy oftoneis concem^d was apprised by the poHce at 7|. 4ad atound CM^f<n<fli *iiH<riT'? fs^ <pq<$i< ^3^TH3TT^r jported by aa Anibassador car, he recorded his satisfaction for not ^cused persons inay flee wifh fhe in obtaiaiag fhe warraD^t and he searched every vehicle passiag 10,00 a,ni. he stopped the t)resent appellaats were traveUng. On r|ames aad fhereafter they were given Act and after obtaming their consent Inofhiag uicriminatmg was found on vehicle was searched aad m fhe said which was found to be cannabis 4fter taking out the sample from fhe aiid fhereafter fhe weighment was |1 for sealing was also seized froxn Seal investigation was done ui presence |ingarai!L, AU fhe dociiments prcpared dgnatures. P.W. 3 Gaagaraia has also |by the police persons that a vehicle pass aad when aa anibassador car is stopped by Uie poMce aiid froin the from the dickey aad rear seat were of the appeUant mat there is fhat fhis witaess has stated that he ,00 aBi whereas the secret information seized seailed tdtal lablis conllention \- ^T^T^T ^Icn 3?^ $ft^icb <if^a ^ ^? 7;qpTR;PT, ^Til^Ko, ic«ni^li< ^^..fc..^o,..^3/^r (tNr"'-1--"-7--"-"^ 200 ^w^ll 5b^l<sb fc<<b<CT* n^r ^I^T^<TTW ^rf^T ~5 ajni, aliid QCCUp^lltS corroborfeted Bieiao Aentions tmie of 5.25 fhe stateiaent of ftds witness whole iavestigation caanot b| prosecution that fh.e contrabaGJd aad fhe appellants were ia fhis regard is duly cross-examination, fiie defenc^ which raakes their versionl iaipression of fhe seal is pres|ej seizure Bieino, fhe lnvestigati4g that after drawiag fhe sampl sealed and the seal bv whicb seized, fhe F.S,L. report also wifh fh.e sarae seal which was ,the evidence ofP.W, 6 the Inv< fhe appellaiits were ui consciolis was seized frbm tlie travelmg, 8. In fhe result, fhe appea|i and is hereby disraissed. Ainb^saldor cbi<<(<n<i1i 'WT^if "^ fe^ <Pn^i< '^3Tp<HT3TI^T ^DI,, iHerely on basis of discrcpaacy on fhat of fhe iavestigation officer, the >fc fhrown out, It is the case of fhe was seized from the Ambassador car ofthat ear. The version offhe 1,0. by P.W. 3 Gaiigaram aad m fheir ^ has not been able to eUcit aayfhmg untrustivorthy or unreUable. The slent ia fhe recovery niemo as also on Officer has stated ia his deposition ;s froin contrabaiid, fhe same were the saaiples were sealed was also ^entious that the saiaples were sealed (seized during mvestigation. Thus from ^stigating Ofilcer, it is established fhat possession of fhe contrabaiid which car ia whicli the appeUaats were beiag devoid of inerit is Uable to be Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^'