si»artB»«nB!BH! s;;ria>aB"-'"*Iw*«B<ici.w'.IBiB'w.r 3Il^t.1iI k-M> WF3ITOI **11'* 3-c^ •^ww-tt, w^ww, ^viwy. 'WIW **11*' Wt. 200 3D^T IpRt (Ipf^B^) '^arw^f^ 3ii^i CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.612 OF 2006 APPELLANT Kashittim, son of Ratiram, aged about 29 year4 resident of Village Nondpura, (3udip|ara, P.5. Bhanpuri, bistrict Bastar. Vs RESPONDENT Stnt^ Bodhj CRIMINAL AWEAL N0.613 OF 2006 APPELLANT Vs RESPONbENT Present: Mr. Anand Suptn, Advoarte for th Mr. Ashok Mishra, Advocate for Mr. &.K. Beriwal, &y. Adv. ©eneral (7th Sept<i|»ber, 2007) Per Dhinndn Mishrn. J: Crimmal Appeat No.612/Q6| Criminul Appeal- No.613/06 'fiKd q>nI(Tl4lTt Hl*1^ff'^T^Il3t <P»i^K ^; siRiti afl^d • of Chhattisgarh, Police Station hat, District Bastar -^ La|(heshwar. son of Balku, aged about 36 years, resident of Vilk^e Nct'dpura, Sudipara, P.S. Bhanpuri, Di^trict Bostnr. 5t(ite of Chhattisgarh, Potice Station B6{lhghat, bistrict Bastar appellant in Cr.A. No. 612/06. •ttfe oppelknt in Cr.A. No. 613/06. ^or the respondent-State. ORAL Jll»t)6MENT filed by appellant-Kashirom and |?y iappellant-Lakheshwar are being GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007— 50,UUO- "'"""nBj'^^'eaiaiMatt'^auBsaw'a'Bi"**^ S.SS.,a-a-lf-":.l"je.-l 3FEST ^TFTRPT, »t(1*f'l<o,R|<?'il'y^< tir'idi *<4i<b •--"-••—-"----—--••--— ^ 200 3ii^?r law (^?fgs?tT) ail^l.^ff ft'fi* wn aiR?i'ww ?<dpg< •tifer ofl^W 2 ^K^fe^Tif *TMci? "^f rs*<n •tf^^u ^ <riRl*l •aff^?! —£".. decided by this common judgmen^ as both these appeals are directed against the judgment dated 2^.7.2006 passed in 5essions Triat No.47/05 whereby leamed Spec|ial Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Bastar ot Jagdaipur has convicted the appejitants under Section 20(b) (ii)(b) of •the Narcotics Orug & Psychotrop|ic Substanees Act, 1985 (for short >the Act") and sentenced each of -^hem to undergo RJ. for 2 years and to poy a fme of fts.5,000/-, in dejfault of payment of fine to furrfier undergo RJ. for 6 months. Case of the prosecution, in 9.4B p.m the Station House Offic^r, Police Station Bodhghat received secret information •that two pers cdrrying cannabis (Sanja). The s((id information was recorded in -riie daily diary and Suchna Panchnarjia of Ex.P-18 was prepared in the presence of witnesses. Informcrt^ Superintendent of Police vide Ex.| appellmts were sitting in +he waj them were carrying one bag eac^ them with the notice of Ex.P-3 search •Hiem and if they want*o they moy take them to brief, is -t+iat on 28.11.200S at about >ns are sitting in the new bus stomd fon wos also forwarded to •the City p-19 and thereaf+er the policy party proceeded for the place of incid^nt around 22.20 hrs. Independent wi-hTesses Rajesh Sahu (PW-2) A ^uresh Soni (PW-3) were called. The ^•ing room of bus stand and both of . The Investigating Officer served ^y. ft' nforming theff) that they mten<tto f -^ t>e searched by any gazette/officer, l.ofl-icer. However, tbe eppellonts GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007— 50.UOO. ^. .tf'"1 ^M13Tr^iatS^SS*B3Bife£?t;;^r.: t. <t'L 3S? '<11<<10<(, ®Tfl'M'l<o,R|01tiy *11«^1 **<I*' •WI, 200 siriiw isra; (1pf5g5'T) ail^l.Tt R"fi*b W <tfl<i<l SB*ll<t> G: ^«D^<^k^ sn^i -3 expressed their consent to be ^earched by the police office and thereafter, after givmg their per^onal search, they searched the bags of accused persons ond found cjmnabis like substance jn both -the bogs. The contmband was weighejd on -the q)ot and it was found that appellant-Kadiiram was having 3| hovin9 2 Kg of cannabis. Two sar|i nnd thereafter panchnama was p^epared. The samples were seated and marked. Thereafter, the ac<jused persons were brought to the pofice station and FIR of Ex.P-24 stored in the Atoalkhana for safe was lodged. Seized contrabc»idwas custody ond •the samples were sent ond aft-er investigating •the charge) p.m., whereas, from perusal of th^ Investigating Officer, it woutd ^H'^F^Fii'f w^ff^ ^S <f^i^.i^ ^^rRR'W^T Kg and oppelkint Lakeshwar was ples from each bag were taken out for chemiail exuminatjon to Forenjsic Science Laboratory vide Ex.P-28 sheet wos filed. Conviction of the cppellar|ts is based on 'ttie statement of InvestJgat'mg Officer Shri O.P; Si(igh (PW-5) as also on the statement of panchanama wi-tnesses Rajesh Sjahu (PW-2) and Suresh Soni (PW-3) Leomed counsel for the app|ell<nits submits that from perusal of the statement of panchnama witr|esses it would be evident -ttiat the witnesses were present on -the plojce of incident only from 10 to 10.30 seizure memo as also stntement of be evident that the police party reached -the phce of incidentat 1^.00 p.m. and therefore, the version given by the witrie'sses'ond Iflvestgcrring Officer are contradictory to GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007— SO.WO. 'wsiiiittw'iei'avst^ss'^iiit^^iww^^ viv,ww»i 'S^ '<<i<<iirt<i, axflwKo, Rfirtiyy i i1;:.:!": ;t'' ^MW *t11*"~"""""""""""""""""""""""""""^ 200 sn^r 'wra; (1ipf^!i??f) an^ii.'w f^-li* WITSII'RF amRr ^rf^T 31^1 C«ii*y<w^ <»ii —t- cr>lt(T<'t4l'l ^!ll|<lf tf 1st<l •(.pri^K ^iSfflPT 3(1^1 bnch other ond the court- below ^jpon tl'ieir statements. He also bresent in +he statement of [that nfter completing seizure on< |to -the police station wi-th -the Ifollowing day at 3.05 a.m. 1-lowever), Iwi-tnesias it would be evident th<r< |10.30 p.m. On 1+ie o+her hmd, leame< support-s -the impugned judgment. I haveheard leamed counse) From the s+atement of |after completing the mandatory [42, 50 & 57a seizure of incident in the presence of in< Inves-i'igating Officer is duly independent ponch wttnesses, who^ by the police on tiie place of inci<(i in their presence and -ttiey had s\^\ & 2kg 6f Sanja was seized from •th^ •In view of the statement: 4 _fmds support from 1+ie stdtement| Has acfcused committed illegality by retying Ipoin'ted towards the discrepancy Invelstigating Officer, who hos ststed id (^reparing panchnama, they retumed persons & witnesses in the from perusal of the statement of •they left the place of incident at &y. Adv. Seneral for the State for -the part'ies. Invt(stigating Officer it is evident that pfovisions of the Act under Sections was effected from the piace of id^pendent witnesses. Statement of c^rroborated by •the s+atement of have stated that -they were called EJent, seizure of ©anjawas effected the seizure memo whereby 3k9 possessionof accused persons. ^f the Investigating Officer, which of Jndependent witnesses ond which contrabdnd sidned GRPRJ — FS/246—2/20d7— 50.UUO. ^^..i-a XI-HC—78 t*afTT|innlllHjtflininili-imirlrtnia'iWtB«BlHyta»aim».iaitei 3:5q';^FTR5q', aiTfltl'lS, ftrtltfy an^l 9;! R-tMi 'cTqr 3T^T ^>TlN' '^ <e.'^ ^A.'<»^- 'qrq?n' a>ii<i» am^r TISR; (i<«ti'"«CT) "•WI, 200 <WIW *)Rld 31^51 'liwid'il-l ^inaf ifjyzt <h<^K ^ 3TRlH afl^T also finds support- from tl^e documents prepared during investigation as a(lso -the FtR todged considered opinion thort discarded simply because <] examined ttfter •the certain tfter -ttie seizure, this court is of the the statement of witnesses cannot be \f some onomalies regarding timing of the incident, as •the said onoiiialies can occur when the witnesses are period of mcident. In the light of the ^ibove discussion, there is no illegality or infirmity m -the impugned ji^dgment whereby -the appellants hgve been convicted and sentenced, a^ described inPara l of this judgment. In the result, •the op((eals of •the oppeltants fail dlid accordinigly, •the same are hereby dismis^ed. Judge Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ;Justice