F -HC-22 3TI^T'^T f^w^n^T 9ti+ii<^ <if^a ••^ 'S^! ^NH^, ^Til<i<i(o, f^<ni<iy ^ni^r ''^RR *11*1<!fll g^qi^-—••*———————•—•—^F^ 200 fN^ST' ^IT^T ^<TTW ^n^r •^ mGH COURT OF CttHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRJMINAL APt»EAL N0. 505 OF 2004 8.B. - HON'BLE SHRI ^USTICE DmRENDRA MI8HRA Appellant Respondeat 5.11.^007 Sluri Radiidra Mislir&l ShriS.K. Mishra.P.LI. Heard on adixiission.l The appeal is adinitt^d The matter is Nted 1461{ 2004. application fo^ of bail. However, wifh fhel heard fiiiaUy. This appeal is dijrected conviction aiid order of passed in Special Criiniaall Special Court under N.D appeUaat under Section (for brevity ' thc Act) and chi^I<n<flri *iH<nt"? F€<^I <P»i<^i< '^'^rf^msn^T Baajubabu S/ o Nogedara aged about 22 ycars R/0 Chinchoor P/S Paadel Distt. Vishakfaapatnam (A.P.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh through p/s G.R.P. Raipur (C.G.) ., couxisd lor UM; appdlaiil. for the State. for heariag. for heariag on M.Cr.P.No. suspension of seateace and grant consent of fhe parties, the appeal is agauist fhe judgmeat of ieatence dated 9th February 2004 |CaseNo. 16/2003whereby learned JP.S. Act Raipur has convicted the 2p(b) ii (B) ofthe N.D.P.S. Act, 2001 ^ciiteaced him to undergo RI for two ^-.^sy ^^y^ - STT^T^T w\^ ^^ sti*iic»i <ii^a '3~a? ^I^IH^I, ^Ti1<i<Ko, Ic«ni<iy snif^r xrsra? ^l*<€ftl'g^q^-——*••——"—'•——••——^p^ 200 '^S^f" 37T^T ^<IT^R 'yf^a 2- years, pay a fine of Rs.2000j to undergo additional RI for 2. Case of tiie prosccut| PW-4 S.N. Akhtar, S.H.O.J mformLaticm that a person Korba Lmk Express carryb|ig recording secret inform.atio^i and aflber arrival of the t| describcd ia the infonn^ S.T.D./P.C.O. Booth, who poUce. However, he was apprisiag him about the inj| search, his bag was seai{ substaiices were recoveredl samie were found to be cabn found to be 4 kg. After the contorabaad was dulvl prepared. Thereafter, registered. The contraba| (godown) for safe custpdy ar| \ • ' .•' • ' ' '. • •'."; ofifence was sent to the for cheaiiical exaiiiiiiation which confirnied fhat fhe Thereafter, charge sheetwa^ tak^ag tihle sup^nor <sr»i<if<n<Ilt +iM<rff Tt f^l<l <Pn^i< ^? 3?f^FT 3TT^T - and ia dcfault to paynient of jBne Ebur months. on, in brief, is that on 11.3.2003 G.R.P. Raipur received a secret s fraveUng in Vishakhapattanaxii- camiabis in a jute bag. After the officcr weat to the platforci raia at the platforxn, fhe person Ltipn was found standiag near tried to escape after sediig the stopped by the poUce and after brniation aad after giviag personal ched, jfrom which camiabis Ukc On prelmiinary examuiation the iinabis and on weighmeat, it was out twro samples of 50 gm each, sealed and seizure xnemo was First Information Report was id was stored ia the Sffalkhana .d fhereaftery inforniation about the officers aad saniples were seat to Forensic Science Laboratorv, Iseized contrabaad was caiuiabis. atinal jGOled agaia&t fhe appeUant. T S^-s^ ^n^T'^r f<tli?b 3TI^T 5b*iich ^a ^ ^ 'S^i ^WM^, ^Tit<i<i<o, f®i<ni^l< 3ni^T ''^ra? *ll*ldl ^b^icb""" '**"*"<""***<%(F^ 20® •ierc^T' 31T^T'^HW^rf^ 3. Duriag trial fhe pros< Thereafter, statement of fh^ denied the circunistaace^ pro'secution case and However, frial Courf aftcr parties, convicted and nientioned in paragraph 1 plead|ed settteaced 4. Learned counsel for PW-3 Krishna NisKad, m^ej Section 50 of the Act (Ex.P/2), search memo wcighiacrit memo (Ex.P/4)j turned hostUe. Evea the has not proved the has siinply stated fhat docum.ents. The nature of bv whoni fhe iaforniaticln mentioned nor he has beenl Court has convictcd the ^fatemLeat of S.N. AkKtar. (3x gl^en ofher docuniekits 5. On fhe ofhcr State/respondent support Court. cbl^fd^l'1 *ii*i<yiY Tt f^^i <P>1«^|< ^^rf^ma^T scution exaniiaed 5 witaesses in aU. accused was recorded ia which he appeariag agaiast him in fhe iniioceace aad false ixiipUcation. heariag counsel for fhe respecti.ve the accused/appeUant as 'thisjudgaieat. Ipie accused/appeUant subxnits that ^epeHdexrf witaess of noticc under ^x.P/iV, consent of the appdlant by the poUce party (Ex.P/3), aad sdaire niemo of Ex.P/5, has witness Devaaaiid Soni fPW-lti of which he is sigaatory aad he ^ie put his sigaature on all fhe ^nformstion aad naiae ofthe person was recdved, has not been lcxaoiiaed as a witaess aad the trial [appeUant soldy on fhe basis of ^vestigattng officer. ulves hiad learned counsel for the |d itnpugned judgment of fhe trial +- r' 37T^T^T R'licb 5h+ii<=h <iRa 'S^ ^IHId^, ^Tll-M^Ko, (^<111<iy sni^r 'q^ra? HW^i ^^^-—••—•———••—••——•—^F^ 200 [c|<b<CT< ^^. ^TT^T'^Rnw^f^r cbi^I<n€Di ^i^i<yit"? fs^ <Rn<^i< '^3Tf;<TH3TI^r counsel for fhe parties aiid have ible on record iacludiag the 6. I have heard learn< perused fhe raaterial ijaipugaed judgaient. 7. PW-4 S.N. Alditar. tpie investigatuig officer. has deposed tliat after recdvmg secret bv hiiii and fhcreafter, rel Ironi fhe possession of th^ the raidirig party, 4 kg of iaforniation the same was recorded ^overy of the contraband was m.ade appellant after apprisiag hi33i about fais legal right under fhe A^t aiid after giving personal search by ^annabis llke substances were seized from the bag, which ti|ie appeUant was carrymg. The documcnts prepared duriijig mvestigation were duly signed by (PW-1) and Krishna Kuniar Nishad bace the recoverv was xnade. The laictuied aad it was found to be witiies^es Devaaaad Soni (PW-3) aiid ia their pres recovered article was o cannabis, the sample of s^ized contrabaad was also forwarded to tiie siiperior auldioride cheoiical analysis and rep has not been able to eUcit untrustffirorthy aiid no ar any maadatory provisions the cross-exaoiiaation of witoess is dulv corroboral $ for sciidin.g the same to F.S.L. for ort of the F.S.L. is Ex.P/ 18. Defeace anyfhiag ia the cross-exatamation of this witaess, which m|akes his evidence unreUable or iy irregularity 6r non-compliancc of of tiie Act has been pointed out ia fhis wltaess. The version of fhis ^ed from. the stateaieat of Devanaad Soni (PW-1), who is sign^tory of fhe docunieiits of Ex.P/ 1 to -;,.'..» 371^T'^T fqiws^\ 9h^ii<=!ti <if^a i- '3"^ ^NKn^, ^Tll^^Ko, f^<y11^^< ^n^r 'q?ra? *11NCrll 'g^q^p-—•—••••——•——•—•——^^ 200 f^FP^T' ^^ ^^ITW <it^a r P/ 5. He has stated that on| Railway Station for sedng came jfroni Orissa side aad thc trainwith som.e higgag) obl^?<1<ilt 'RPraf tt fe^ <P»1<$1< '^3iP<TR3n^T |fhe date of iacideiit he had gone to ^ff his famUy, at that time a traia ^he preseat appdlaat aUghted froni The appellant was appreheaded his luggage was searched weighed in his presence by the police, he was brou^ht ncar fhe S.T.D. Booth aad fhere sefczed aad his sigaatures wjere obtaiaed. He has also admitted his sigaatures on the doc^inieats pf Ex.P/1 to P/5. In. his cross-exaiiiination bv thd exaiaiaation-ui-chief aad <| pocket witoess ofthepoUce| 8. The report of F.S.L. laad cannabis was found. It was ^nd thereafter, fhe caniiabis was defeiice he has stuck to his |enied fhe suggestion fhat he is a Ex.P/ 18) meations that sample of fhe contrabaad was recchbed ia a sealed condition and on exainuiation. it was foundl to be caanabis. Thus, from. fhe €;vidence available on recoili the charge agaiast flie app^ |d, fhe prosecution has estabUshed ^Uaat bevond reasonable doubt aad the trial Court on fhe baslis of above evideace has correctly convicted aiid sentenced fljie appeUant under Section 20(b) u (B) oftheN.D.P.S.Aet.Th4retsnoiU€gaIityormfirmity ia the mipugaedjudgmeat oftrial|Court. 9. Ia the result, the a|)peal bemg devoid of substaace is liableto be dismissed andi^ accordiagly, dismissed. Sd/- DhirendraMistea 5 ^^^-••^