W^mK. ./' y' ;Y 'y /<, 2^-_-^L ^3 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT .—'»"' JABALPUR 30((S.'x^ CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. ....". 77. OF 1999 CRIMINAL APPEAL UN5ER SECTION 374 (S> OF CODi&t OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1908 ^lfe Bench (Crimlnal (Arising out of Judgment Dated 07th May" 1999 passad in Special Criminal Case No.EE9/9B^parties being M.P«E:>tate Through Gol-Ba^ar police-station Raipur. « «F:ltrosecutiDn Veraus Aran aliac:> Harc^ni and INO other%« .AccuBeds by the Special Judge under the N.D.P,,S»Ac:t Raipur) ^ ^i ^ ^ ^. w. 1111 * ARAN ALIAS HARONI Aged about 40 years <t (^l^-- Son o-f SShri Murli Korodo (Udaiya) rll'c^- _\f,,.:.-3°*'::''"" l^esident of » Mar' loba A^ Pc^lice-Stationg Raigarh Districts Gajpati Udics.a ^- %.^ „ . . . ACCUSEED-APPELLANT (j; N ^ ^Z L "") V E R S U S , State of Madhya Prad^^h Th r cug h 601-Ba z ar Po1i c e-St at i on Raiiwr.M.P. . . .PROSECUTION i HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS^RH AT BILASPUft Before: Hon'ble Shri Justic®Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Crimjnal Appeal No.3082/1999 Aran © Haronj Vs. State of Chhatl-isgarh Post for: ^ -08-2006 Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge -^ •^ ^ ^l HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. Aopeal No.3082/1999 Aran © Haroni Vs. Stateof Chhattisgarh. Single Bench: Hon'bte Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Pr@s@nt: Smt Kiran Jain, iearned counsel with for the appelbnt, Shrs' Ravindra Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. JU D6M E NT (Deiivered onZ^ugust, 2006) Appeifant Aroini ©Haroni has preferred this appeai against 1+ie judgment dated 7.5,1999 delivered by Shri Ved Prakash, learned Special Judge, Raipur in SpeciaS Case No. 229/1998 whereby the appellant and two other co-accused Johan and Anandi were convicted ^ under Section 20(b)(i) read with Stection 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herelnafter referred to as lthe Acf). The oippellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of the same, to undergo RJ, for 2 months. 2. Appetiont Arani @ Haroni has undergone the sentence awarded by the learned trial Jud9e. Co-accused Johan and Anandi did not prefer oppeal, .;jil^Q^>' ^^- J^...^ . d. c.) ssm c 1 ^ 3. BriefSy stated the prosecution story is that on 7.10.1998, Asstt, Sub Inspector Shri P.K. Po.thak PW-6 of P.S ^ol Bazaar, Raipur received secret information at 8,00 a.m/that the appeli.ant and two co-accused were traveliing with ganja from raiiwoy station, Raipur in on auto rickshaw towards Meena Lodge, Shastri Bazaar, Raipur, After recording the soid information ond informipg his superiors, Asstt Sub Inspector Shri P.K. Pathak PW-6 proceeded to the spot and intercepted an auto rickshaw i.n which the appellant and other two co- accused seated, After complying with th© necessary lega! formalities, the bag in possession of the appeEIant searched and weighed, It was found to contain 7 kgms of ganja, The o.ttache in possession of each co-accused also contained 5 kgms of ganja, The ganja along with the oppelhnt ond two co-accused wos produced by Asst, Syb Inspector Shri PX Pathak PW-6 before the Officer-in-chorge Shri B.S. Rathore PVV-7. He seated the seized article as well as the sample taken therefrom by A,5.1. Shri P.K, Pathak and the same v^as to head constable Jeevrakhan Dhruv PW-2 for safe custody in Malkhaia, 4, On 9.10*1998, one sample po.cket pertaining to the oppe!Iant was sent for chemical onalysis to the FSL along wlth specimen impression of the ^als of A,SJ. Shri P.K. Pathak PW-6 and Officer-in-charge Shri B.5. Rathore, PW-7 ^ol Bazaar, Vide report of the P.SL. Ex- P-38 it was opined tho.t the sample was .Sonja, After ^- 3 completion of investigation, the oppellcxnt and the 2 other co-occused were prosecuted, ""^> s^ 5, The appellont abjured the guilt, pleaded innocence and led no evidence in defence. The prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses, Relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appelbnt ds aforesaid, 6; Leamed counsel for the appelbnt assailed the conyiction of the appellant on the ground 1+iat Sheikh Ismdl, the independent witness of the seizure was not examined by the prosecution, It was also argued that there was non-complionce of Section 55 of the Act due to which conviction of the appelbnt was liable to be set aside. On the other hand/Shri Ravindrd Agrawal, learned Pane! Lawyer argued in support of the impugned judgment. T Hoving considered the rival submissions, I have perused the record. The testimony of A.S.I. Shri P.K. Pathak PW-6 relating to seizure of one packet containing 7 kgms of gonja like substcmce from the oppellant is not on!y unrebutted in cross-examination, but is also corroborated by Ramu Swamy PW-1, Pankaj Akhtar PW-4 and Kanhdya Sindhi PW-5 who were independent witnesses, It also shows that the secret information received by A,SJ, Shri P.K, Pathak PW-6 was recorded and intimation thereof was also sent to the syperior _1 v.^.. officers, His testimony also proves that the oppellont and the contraband artides seized from the appellant and the sampte taken therefrom were produced by A.S,L Shri P.K. Pathak PW-6 before Shri B.S. Rathore PW-7 who the Officer-in-charge of the police station, &ol Bazaar, Raipur, The testimony of Shri B-S, Rathore PW-7 ajso ciearty shows that he had o.ffixed his seal on the packet before entrusting it in the M.a!khona for safe custody, This is aiso corroborafed by the wholly unrebutted testimony of head constable Jeevrakhan Dhruv PW-2. The seizure memo Ex.P-26 bears the impression of seal of City Kotwali, Raipur, The report of thc FSL ExP-38 also clearly mentions that the so.mp le received for analysis bore the seal of P.5. City Kotwali, Raipur as aiso th©seai of the O.I.C. Shri 6,5. Rathore having imprint "BSRMPP". It is. thus clear that the proyisions of Section 52 (3) and Section 55 of the Act were aiso duiy compSied with, The defence has not been able to show even a remotest possibility of tampering with the samptes, Non-examination of Sheikh Ismail by the prosecution aiso, in no manner, comes to oid of the appelbnt, 8. Having thus considered the evidence led by the prosecution in its entirety, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has esto.biished the guilt of the appelIoLnt for the offence under Section 20(b)(i) read with Section 8 of the Act/1985, The sentence awarded ^. . ^ by the iearned trial Judge hoving already undergone by the appeiiant, does not cal! for any interference. ^iya 9. In the resuit, the appeai being deyoid of merit is disml^sed, Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge