X!I-189(JaiI)CJ.P.R.;9-94 ..^.,, ^im^ cin . APPEAL OI='-PRISON€R So ^^g^-aiz^-^fcBTy- 4^^ /^-KT^Name =eTT^^^ ^ CF0000061617 ~r -...,„ Fatber's name _ ^aqrEU^,^ -s^iS^"^ "•**«.>.;! • 'f,^ "'<«:„ ^-BsodL^t"*"61) jB,<^^|7V^^f Age_ "-^5teaeal ta ^^ , ^_I^<L'Tl'^r_£n -L&-^-t^^ " -l0<a&, LSEVGL'/.3s^A).w^'siS, ~ ^^: "^ '^ .' Under Secffon ^y,% iv .11 n .r 't;— _by ^A^l_|i ZtU^y h-?- ^ It is explained to the prisoner that ifhe states he wishes to be repr&sented by alegal pracfifiQne.r the app.eUate'Courtwill not proceed with the'case for seven days unless the .legal practitioner appears earlier. Tf-thelegal practitioner does not a'ppear within seven days he may not tieard at aH if tbe Prisonerstates that he does not.wish to be repre- iented by lega'l practitioner the couit fflay prcGeed'dt once with the case and will not j^bliged to give a hearing to my legal practitioner who shculd appear. : 1,.--- Date of Application for ebpy ofJudgement; 2 Date on which copy .received 3 ,Date on which Appealsent 4 Whether the ptisoner wishes to'bs represented or not 'i^f . No' sm"h Confiaed in f^wr _Name . -^T^^^TPt- ^o -TO Jail_ ^7?W^7- Dated -2-<s - ^ 199'^_ \^varded to the _^ to gether.witn a copy ofju4gement'OF' order passed'in the case for favour. pf transmi- gsion to the properAppellate court. •-:--? .; ; Date of receipt in Office Date ofreceipt ofrecordto accompany the Memo ofAppeal tp the Appellate cozirt '^ T No Dated Fdiwarded to-the. Date of receipt in Appellate eourt 199 T.0; u A-^-S. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE SHK1 JUSTICB VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Criminal Aopeal No. 1121 of 1997 Vahid Khan Versus State of Chhattisgarh JUDGMENT POST FOR 16 -%-2005 Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge i 'i. '. t w. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.1121 of 1997 (AppeaLof Prisonerl B5;: Appellaat Versus Respoadent Vahid Khan, S/o Mohaiiuaed Ali, Aged about 29 years, R/o Kadampara, Girari, Police Station Pendra, District Bflaspur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh Mr. Rajendra Soni, counsel for fhe appeUant. Mr. J.D.Bajpai, Additional Public Prosecutor aad Mr. D.K.Gwalre, Panel Lawyer for fhe respondent/ State. JUDGMENT (Delivered oa 1° - 8 -200SI Per Vi.iav Kumar Shrivastava. J. This appeal has been directed against the judgm.ent of conviction and order of sentence dated 16-5-1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Bilaspur ia Special Criinuial Case No. 157/96, whereby convictmg the appeUaat under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs aad Psychotropic Substaiices Act, 1985 (heuceforth 'the Act^ and/sentenciiig fhe appeUaat to undei^o R.I. for 10 years *• / aad to pay a fine of Rs.l Lakh, ia default of paynient of fine to undergoi ad'ditional R.I. for 2 years. 2. Station House Officer, Pendra, on 13-9-1996 at about 5 P.M. received au information tfaat fhe^^ppeUant has kept iu his house Charas. Shri M.P.Dubey, Station House Officer entered fhe information fal daily diary aad ftadiag that if time wiU. be consuiaed in obtaming search warraat, by that tune, fhe appeUantinay shift fhe Charas froni the spot or inay abscond, therefore, he inade aa entry to fhat effect in Rojnamcha Sartha aad fhereafter sent the necessan' iafonnation to S.D.O.(P.), GaureUa. Shri M.P.Dubey reached the house of fhe appeUaat. By a written notice, he suininoned the witaesses, also gave I'ttfonnation to the appellant that he has kept Charas unautliorisedly ia his house, therefore, house is to be searched and after obtainiag his consent, got prepared consent letter aiKT'iii fhe presence of \vitnesses and fhe appeUant, searched fhe house of fhe appeUant. Durmg search, a wooden box containing Charas was found ia fhe kitchen. The sanie was got weighed. On weighiug, it weighed 200 Grams of Charas and separated a part fhereof as sample for cheinical examiriation. Charas so lecovered was seized and sealed. Oa cheinical examination, the seized article has been found to be Charas (Hashish). After coinpleti&g the uivestigation, fhe charge-sheet has been filed. 3. Charge under Section 20(b)(ii) of fhe Act was read over aud explamed to the appeUaat, who abjured his giult. His defence is fhat he is ianocent aad has been falsely impUcated, Learaed trial / " Coiirt evaluatrp'g fhe evidence adduced by fhe prosecution ia support of atlegations leveled agamst the appeUaat held the appellaut guflty for comiuitting offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) offhe Act aad sentenced Tiim as aforesaid. 4. Bofh the parties are heard. Record of trial Court is perused. 5. Shri M.P.Dubey, PoUce Sub-Inspector/Of&cer-tQ.- Chai^e, Potice Statioa Pendra, ia his eyidence has deposed fhat oa 13-9-1996, he received infonuation from. an uxfoHner that fhe appeUaat has kept ia his house iUicit Charas aud is unauthorisedly involved ia seUing fhe sarae. He rec^irded the infonnation in Saaha No. 1033 and fiading fhat delay will be caused iu obtaining search warraiit aad by that tune the appeUaat Baay dispose of the Charas, he niade anofher entries'iu Sanha No. 1034. He thereafter sent information in writiiig to S.D.O.(P.), GaureUa aad started for fhe spot. On reachiug fhe spot, he suinnioned witnesses Onlcar Prasad scnd Brijesh by written notice. Accoinpaaied with witnesses, he canie to the appeUant's house. The appeUant was present there. He infonaed fhe appellaat that he has kept Charas, therefore, search is to be m.ade. The appellant gave his consent for search. He himself aad witnesses gave fheir personal search to fhe appeltaiit aud fhereafter ia presence of wituesses fhe house was searched. la Kitchea, about 200 Granis of Charas was found, Panchnama was prepared. On weighing, fhe Charas was fouad to be 200 Grams. 10 Grams for sample was separated. Article recovered was sealed, seizure was prepared aud fhen fhe appeUaiit was arrested. On spot, / " Dehati NaUsi^as got recorded. 6. ShriM.P.Dubey, P.W.-2 has furfher deposed that seized property was deposited in Matkhaiia. The sample was sent for cheniical exaiainatipn through PoUce Constable No. 134, Fekulal. 3Tp ^BTp p311TCIIPB SBTt S-'M'd '^3(:tTia'd']rt[ T-[C[S 'tIOBBTIroIex3-sso-(6 ^I •O piie q» '>; 3f[OT)JE 'yess ^TtBAS^ai aip paAojd.^os^e sq 'pnoo atp .tq psniniBxa SBM. sq nsqM lei-q Suunp ^m.QQ u^ '8T-c['xa ''TS'd 'cao-9 p3Ap33J •(Jodai aip. pire ^T-d'xg '•TS'^1 ^ct U3A1S ^aSTftgpSlIMOTTqOB '9T-d'x3 'a^dtitBS pszias SCQ jo UOp^BUmiBX^ ^B3Tia3t[3 / -IOJ 'TS'd °l tuas jausi 'ST-d'x3 'BiretpHew ui paiTs.edap Aijadojd / p3Zt3S 01 §UttB[3J A-qiIS 3T^ pTiB jsisiSaa WBv^Byi '^T-d'xg 'Aqas ^eip 01 SURBIS.I ^Qds 01 gup-re^s 10} 'ET.-d'x3 'SYBioigo jaqgiq o^ -^TISS uoTfBvcLiojEa 'ST-d'xg 'BTpjeg ^Bip '^ods 01 S'mpssooiid JQJ ^tiBj-iBM qojeas guTOTBi.qo ^noTpTA '11:-d'xa '^Tpies UI'-' 7 uor(BT[uojttt psB.iooej: s^R '6-d'xg 'isipiN p^qaa 9^R p3Aojd jaqiJiy S-'A'd 'AqnQ'd'N iiqg 'S-d'xa 'wiBuqarcied pTie ^-d'xg 'SBieqo jo ajnzias 'e-d'xg 'sfeygx^jao SltTqSiSM 'Z-crxg 'OTIISTII qojeas 'T-d'x3 'aopon paAojd 3AEq T-'M'd 'pBSB.Td JBSpIQ P ? S--M'd '^aqna'J-W uqs •8 'pa^saUB SBAV tUBnsddB 3ip j3yB3j3tp. pajedaid uaaq 3ABq siuaiiinoop ^ijesssoaa prre aaop usaq saq §TiT[dniBS pue 8uiq8i3^ 'pajedaid asaq 3ABq s^uauinoop 'qo-EBSS gutpiBSay •sutaio QOS Pan°J SBM ^1 'aiires aip SatqgTSAV HQ 'SKIBT[O 3AES asnoq srq Tuo.g ^iEensddis aqj, •asiioq s^TlBuaddi3 aip paiscfaa Aaqj, 'qoJBas -tisTp 3ABg OS^B Aaip ptCB qojess siq 3AB§jaOTgo asptoH Tiofl.Big jayBajaip 'psqojeas gq 01 si asnoq siq ^Bqi 30T[oj wy. Aq pam.iojui SBAS. ^TieiisddB aqj, -asnoq s^TtBQsddB 3ipr psqoBai qssfug piFB SH 'sopOH US^T-IM B splA asnoq s.iirenaddB 3tp JBSU paneo si3A aq ^lp pasodap aouapiAa siq ui 'ssstl^TM inapuadapltl TIB ST QT[M 'T-'^'d 'pBsuij jBSpiQ •^ •jijjadojd sip osp3 ptre ttB{[eqo sip p3Hj: aq 'aoT).B8p.S3AHi -layv 'psApoa-i SBM ^iodai 'nottBuroiexa jayv p o^ w property was deposited ra MaUdiana on 13-9-1996 aad 011 19-10- 1996 the sample was sent to F. S. L. aud the said saniple was received by F.S.L. on 29-10-1996. 9. The appeUaat's .contentioa is that because of such unexplained delay, it is doubtful that the same article has been examined by cheiuical examiaer which was seized fi-oin the house of fhe appeUaut. This contentioh has ri,b force because fhe property was sealed on spot aad as per Ex.P-17 fhe propert)7 was received iutact in sealed conditioa by fhe F.S.L. The appeUant's further contention is fhat proceduie prescribed for search has not been foUowed bv the Station House Officer ia accordance wifh law. This contention has also no force. Shri M.P.Dubey is au aufhorised Officer under Section 42 of fhe Act for conductiug search, who on receiving iaformation frora iafonner, took it down iu. writing. He also recorded the grounds for taking search wifhout obtauung search warrant or aufhorisation. He also forfhwith sent the iafonnation to his iminediate superior officer. For taking search, he also caUed to independent witnesses of fbc viciaity aad after foUowuig necessary procedure for takuig house search, he in presence of the appeUant as weU as independent witaesses took search of fhe house. 10. Botih the y ^ have been tested by fhe cross- -. / *• '• . examjnaltioa t»ut nothing substantial has been brought ia fheir cross-exaTnifiation so as to dfficredit their version. Froin aforesaid oral stateiuent duly corroborated with various proved docunients stated above, it was estabUshed fhat iu accordance with prescribed procedure, (he appellaat's house has been searched aad the property said to be Charas has been recovered. Ou cheinical examiaation vide report Ex.P-18, cheinical exartdner has found the saiaple of fhe seized property to be Charas (Hashish). I am of the opmion that leamed tdal Court, after evaluating fhe evidence and considering the relevaat provisions, has corrccfly held fhe appeBant giulty for uiiautfaorised possession of Charas (Hashisb) aad correctly held Iiim guilly'iinder Section 20(b)(u) of the Act so also punished hiia accordiag to fhe inaadate of fhe said provision. ">' 11. In the result, the appeal fails. Judguient of conviction and order of sentence passed.by fbe _faial—Qzujctis confirmed. Appeal disiuissed. ,—' '— ....--.-,-; Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge t;,;iJ.Si^ >. /