1 ^^ Bench INTHE HIGiI CQURTOF CHHATTISGARH'AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. .5^0 OF 2011 SINGLE BBNCH APPELLANT (IN JAIL) tl. P.R. Ns.....^— prewnteit byShn^ \.........^^ Sarfcsh Kuraar Tiwari, son of Shri Sitaram Tiwari, aged about 54 years, resident of Sindhari, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh I- _ CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 12) OFTHE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. Cr.A.No.570of2011 Santosh Kumar Tiwari. Versus State of Chhattisgarh. Shri M.K. Bhaduri, counsel torthe apoeliant. Shr! Avinash K. Mishra, Pan©!L^y.ysr for ths Ststs. ORAL ORDER (15/12/2011) The appellant has challenged his conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of Nareotic Drugs and Psychographics Substance Act, 1985 and imposition ^•A^ of sentenced of Rl for two years and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment offine, additional Rl forthree months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that the concerned Police received secret information vide Mukhbir Panchnama Ex,P/6 at about 04.25 p.m. On 18/07/2010 to the effect that the appeliant is involved in selling Gan.ia from his house. Information was teken on Rojnamcha Sanha and superiors were informed vide Ex.P/5. The Investigating Officer proceeded to conduct raid along with staff and team of Crime Branch after entering in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 819. Appellant was given notice under Section 50 vide Ex.P/7 on which he agreed to be searehed by Police Officer vide Ex.P/8. In the said search the Police found 5 Kg. and 700 grams of Ganja kept in a plastic bag. Seizure memo was prepared vide Ex.P/13 and Weighment /' Panchnama was prepared by Ex.P/15, Two separate packets of 100 grams each were separated and rest of the quantity was sealed vlde Ex.P/17. After obtaining Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report vide Ex.P/30 charge- sheetwasfiled. 3. The appellant abjured his guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated. He examined DW-1 Rajendra Pathak and DW-2 Pramod Kumar in his defense, Prosecution examined RW-1 D. Lakra, PW-2 Rakesh Tiwari, PW-3 Shantiyal Kujur, Rft/-4 Munnusingh Rawat, PW-5 Teekaram and PW-6 B. Kujur. 3. After appreciation of evidence the appeliant has been convicted as mentioned above. Leamed counsel for the appellant would submit that offence has not been proved against the appellant and he deserves to be acquitted. Alternattvely he has argued that the appellant is continuously in jail for about one year and five months from the date of commission of offence, therefore the sentence already undergone may be treated as sufficient punishment. 4. RA/-4 Munnusingh Rawat and PW-5 Teekaram are witnesses to the seizure memo Ex.P/5 and other documents Ex.P/6 to Ex.P/12. however, they have denied that any contraband was seized in their presence. 5. R/V-1 D. Lakra, PW-2 Rakesh TIwari. PW-3 Shantiyal Kujur and PW-6 B. Kujur are Police Officers. They have proved conduct of raid and seizure of contraband. They have also proved Mukhbir Panchnama, Seizure Memo, Weighment Panchnama and the sending of contraband to FSL and its report vide Ex.P/30. There is nothing on the record indicating that these Police Officers have any animosity towards the appellant or that otherwise they wanted to frame the appellant in the crime. It is settled law that Police Officer is as good a witness like any other witness and mereiy because he is a -y'.A '^i- ffw^ 'l °»S!S/,/ Police Officer his statement cannot be disbelieved, as has been held in Karamjit Slngh Vs. State (Delhi Admlnistration) reported in (2003) S SCC 291. 6. Before conducting the search appeilant was informed about his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or by a Magistrate, however, he agreed to be searched by the Police Officer. Superiors were informed about the entire operation. The seized Ganja was deposited in t'ne Malkhana and it was sent for chemical examination on 19/07/2010 i.e. immediately on the next date. Report of FSL vide Ex.P/30 is positive. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that while conducting the search and sending the contraband for chemical examination the provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 55 have been duly complied with and the impugned conviction needs no interference. 7. Appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rl for two years. He is in jail since last one year and five months as he was not released on bai! during trial. Considering the fact that the seized quantity of Ganja is not of commereial quantity and the appellant has already suffered jail sentence of about one year and five months, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence undergone is sufficient punishment, therefore the instant appeal is partiy aliowed. While maintaining his conviction it is directed that the sentence imposed upon the appeliant is reduced to the period already undergone. Fine amount is not interfered. If the appellant is not required in any other case, he be released forthwith, Appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge