T L» CF0000059952 IN THE HIGH COURT • OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR8^^ &s!^<^» ^ CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. \ <a ^.^ OF 1996 APPELLANT: • Nand Kumaj^Son of Dhanes^Gond, - ,. T^T^ATTT f .^' . ~ ' ^''. aged 35 year^/Resident of villa^e , Charra^Pollce Station—- Kurud, ^ Tahsil Dhamtari, Distrig^: Raipur (M<P, ) VERSUS *. State of Madhya P.Fddesh^ ' - .i.j Ji> 1 ^j RESPONDENT: •%^- ."<f CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF .CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 ^ u ). I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUJVIAR MISHRA. J. Cr.A.No.1664of 1996 APPELLANT Nand Kuroar. Versus RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Avinash K. Mishra, Pan©lLawyer for the State, ORALORDER (15W7/2011) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24/09/1996 passed jn Special Case No. 68 of 1^6whereby leamed Additional Sessions Judge, Tahsil Dhamtari, District - Raipur has convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Phychotropic Substance Act, 1985 and sentenced him to undergo Rl for 1 % years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rl forfour months. (2) Appellant was found to be in possession of contraband Ganja weighing 4 Kg 150 gram when a search of his house was conducted on 14/05/1996. Before effecting the search the accused was made aware of and was asked as to whether he wants to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or by a Magistrate on which he stated that he wants to be searched by the concerned police officer.Ex.P/3 is the letter of consent signed by the appellant. After giving his own search by the Police OfRcer to the witnesses, the search was conducted and the contraband ganja was found in four polythene bags along with weighing instruments. (3) In the course of trial the prosecution examined D. P. Sharma, A.S.J. as RA/-1, Kotwar Lomsingh as PW-2, Purshottam as PW-3, Kamal Singh as -^- PW-4, Anil Kumar as PW-5 and Prahlad Singh RA/-6. ff/V-1 D.P. Sharma has conducted the search and has made investigation. He has proved the entire search operation. Though PW-2 Lomsingh and R/V-3 Purshottam and RA/-4 Kamal have not supported the case of prosecution, yet since they have admitted their signature on the seizure memo, it has been held by the trial Court that they are not speaking truth in the Court. (4) In the present case, the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has admitted that he had kept Ganja jn his house for his own consumption meaning thereby that he admits to possess Ganja but is taking shelter by saying that it was for personal consumption, however, when huge quantity of Ganja weighing about 4 Kg.150 gram have been seized, it can never be said that the said quantity was for personal use. (5) In view of the admission made by the appellant in his accused statement, arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not proved the seizure of the contraband js not acceptable. (6) This Court has gone through the record and on examination this Court is not in a position to take a different view and record a djfferent finding about the guilt ofthe appellant than what has been recorded by the trial Court. The finding of guilt is supported by evidence as well as the appellant's own admission of keeping Ganja for his personal use. (7) No ground for interference in this appeal is made out. It is accordingly dismissed. The bail bond is canceded. The appellant shall be taken into custody and sent to jail for serving the remaining part of the sentence. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge