APPEAL OF PRISONE gR Nogggg... Nameam‘f‘gn > .. Father’s name mr.f§g.11f§bf€§r#y11§.§w‘arqruw Residencem.15~famma:z..mogm......c. Age 75am w ;, samen‘ced ., to'.;mé*a..$Lm..wtnal:a:mmroni;.11Lzéwggi‘: “no, aomooaa a? FEW? .. Under section ”2V0”gaia..zl.a..;aa.a..m§r by "graim.fam.;zm;mxmgmmwg ff??? EYE—WM. ‘\ / w * H V It is explained to the prisoner that if he states or wishes to be represented by legal’ practitioner the Appellate/(curt will not proceedmfhfhgpgisgfgr seven days unless the legal praétitioner appears t Ifwtihwei le‘gialipféétitEiie.ades not appear within seven days he may not heard at all ./ If the prisoner states that he does not-wish to be repre- sei’ttéd by legal practitioner the court may proeeed at once with the easerand will not be obliged to give a hearing to any legal practitioner who should appear . / ' l Date of Application for copy of Judgement 2 Dateron which copyreceiyed "pg/Lg/ggpu 3 D:late on yvhich Appeal sent ..é’)3/g.§)/9g...r;.:r..... 4 Whether the prisoner Wishes tobe represented or not - Yes / No J N0.... ,. .8629. .. Confined in . Name ..awngget.fmmnrfa‘ennr‘en.... . . hire Jail t.....rmg.t.za.£n.gnr...... No...t.......§ 2?.£fnfama - Dated...:.......@t3/Iz.499a....;......... Forwarded to the eeHegewrerkeanAereeRA-w arm Weir? were stem; igéatlier which a copy of judgement or ordery$§§e§ 13nn’iléggse cg?agvug?r$gf?mwr I ram- mission to the proper Appellate Court. awe:— fanm‘ogogto: 27I/97 afl- gnrfwrnrg’th i z _ / Date ofreceipt in... ...;...;V.'orfice - we Date of receipt record to accompany the Memo ofAppeal to the Appella‘te’court / .. . s Np. .,....r..,..Dated...................._199...;.....-.,.......' Forwarded do the \ \ t \v Date of receipt in Appellate Court ..;.:r “1:.” * ’ .....c.......t... ...............n .. x wk 3 ? { ; gg.:_9gg:;l;94,m ”w k mumnmmm mum s CF0000?59763 IN THE HIGH COURT OF WATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2657/98 Dharam Singh VS. state of M.P. (c.G.) JUDGMENT Per Hon.R.S.Garg,J : Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11-9-1998 passed in Special Case No.271/97 by the learned Specg‘al Judge (N.D.P.S.). Raipur aonvicting the appellant under secticn 20(b)(1) read with Section 8 or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of k.l+0,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 28—7-1997 the then Station House Officer Mr.D.Singh (P.W.9) received an information that the present appellant had stored contraband ganja in his house. After recording the infonmation in the rojnamcha, Mr.D.Singh send;the information to his immediately officer Superior. Mr.Pandey informed Mr. Singh that as the Station House Officer had gone on a patrol, he himself would go for the purpose of conducting the search and raid. The police officers went to the Spot. An entry in relation to this fact was also made in the rojnamcha. After reaching the spot alongwith the witnesses, Mr.D.Singh gave a notice to the appellant under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S.Act. As the accused gave ,//i>!"r»\,\ a @.¢ 2 his consentvfor his search, under the hands of Mr.D.Singh a search was conducted. From the court-yard, under the paddy about 4h packets were recovered, each packet was containing about 4 kg. ganja. W 43 packets were tied with the jute rape while one packet was open. The articles were weighed on the spot, samples were drawn and thereafter the accused so V also the articles were brought to the police station. The first information report was reoorded. The articles were kept in the malkhana, an information in relation to search, seizure and registration 0f the crime was sent to the Additional Superintendent of Police, so also to the Superintendent of Police. The sample ganja was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its analysis. Under Ex.P/11 dated 11-8—1997 the Forensic Science Laboratory informed the poli ce that the sample was ganja. Being armed with the statements of the witnesses, panchnamas prepared on the spot and the repent of the F.S.L., the prosecution agency filed the challan against the accused. The accused denied the commission of the offence, therefore, was put to trial. 4k, 3. The learned trial court after hearing the parties convicted and sentenced the accused as referred to above, therefore, he has come to this Court. 4. Smt.K1ran Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the seizure witnesses P.W.1 Darasram and P.W.2 Maheshram have turned hostile and 8 the recovery was made from an open place accessible to the general public, the court below was unjustified in convicting the appellant. 5. 0n the other Jam, shri Ranveer Singh, learned counsel for the State, submits that from the statements of P.W.7 Vakilram, P.w.8 G.G.Pandey and wLSiPghJt / 3 would clearly appear that the ganja was recovered am from the appellant‘s court-yard which was in exclusiVE‘ passession ofzm. Ee also sibmits that the quantity recovered from the appellant is suggestive of the fact that it was not planted by someone else. &L 6. I have heard the parties at length and have perused the records. 7. True it is that P.w.1 Darasram and P.W.2 Maheshram have not supported the presecution case but the statements of P.w.7 Vakilram, P.w.8 G.G.Pandey and P.W.9 D.singh cannot lightly be seen. 8. P.W.7 Vakilram is the resident of the same village. He has testified on oath that the poli ce party took him to the house of the accused and on a search made in the. (gm housezlm packets containing ganja were recovered. “e has also testified his signatures on the seizure memo Ex.P/12. P.w.9 Mr.D.Singh is the person who had received the intormation. He sent the message to P.w.8 Mr.G.G .Pandey. From the statements of these two witnesses, it would clearly appear that after receiving the information about storage of ganja, they reached to the house of the accused, gave him a notice under Section 5O of the Act and thereafter took the search. In the crass-examination of G.G.Pandey, nothing important regarding the recovery has been asked. In the cross-examination, the questions relating to drawing of the sample, etc. were asked. In paragraph 7. the witness clearly stated that there was no thorough-fair in the court-yard 0f the accused. P.W.9 Mr. D.Singh had also stated that on a Search, 44 packets were recovered. 43 packets were packed while the hhth packet was open. According to him, the packweJe/ighed on / @ 4 the spat and about 175 kg. ganja was recovered. He has also stated that the packets were kept in seven different and the articles sci’also the accused were brought to the police station. In the cross-examination, the question relating to the .warrantrrwas asked. The questions relating to sample were also asked. In para 12, he had stated that he was informed by someone that somebody d'el-ivéxe‘d the contraband ganja at the residence of the accused. He denied the suggestion that the place from where the contrabands were recovered and seized was an open place. 9. From the statements of P.w.7, P.W.8 and P.w.9, it clearly appears’that the police officials and witnesses entered in-the house of the accused, gave him a notice regarding the search and after obtaining his consent they proceeded with the search. In this search, they recovered 44 pa ckets cont aining ganja. gunny bags 10. From their statements, it also appears that the place from where ganja was recovered was in exclusive possession of the appellant and it was not accessible to public. The finding can also be fortified with the assistance of the fact that the said ganja was found under cover of a paddy stack. 1'1. After hearing the learned cOunsel forrthe parties, and going through the records, I am unable to hold that the court below was unjustified in recording the conviction of the appellant. The appellant has been rightly convict ed. strong 12. Smt.Jain at this stage placing her/Wreliance on a ‘ 5 judgment of the High court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Haiku vs. State of M.P., reported in 1g?6(1) Crimes 62§, submits that looking to the age of the appellant, he deserves to be let-off on the period already undergone. 13. I have gone through the said judgment. In the said judgment, the High court round that the appellant was an aged man of 63 years, iour kilogram ganja was recovered frOm him and he had already/gone sentence of more than 1% years. In the present case, the facts are altogether different. AbOut 175 kg. ganja has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. The recovery of this huge quantity does not permit me to reduce the sentence to the periOd already undergone. The c0urt be10w was justified in awarding the sentence. under- 14. The appeal is dismissed. J Sdl- Judge 5—7-2001 . y \ R.S. Garg ‘ \ \ €’4 7.