-?'??"!ffl Si»rtf:h' !^rsTb!<»Shri J?.ic:flr:<» i-=)i^ •**••/ Hiradai. aaed 60 ' v'sars, W/o Dhanpafi, R/o Borgacn, D .C Aarnda, Distt. Navrangpur (Orissa) Vereys The State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Nagarnar, Bastar, Distt. Bastar rlif r^r'm^^t? Pm^^arSiar^ Present: Ms. Sangeeta iviishra, counsei for ihe appeilant. Shri Rakesh Jha. Dy. Government Advocate for the State. NBBes3SR^g&. ORALJUDOMENT fp-aceo--j nn 91" pf li ih; 9nnQ\ ^a ui-^/-^ s^-ui -^i l *« l *^< x^^^l^^ ^*^*^^^ ^ This criminal apDea] is directed aaainst the iudgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.01.2003 passed by the Speciai Court, Jagdaipur (CG) (constituted under Nareotic Drugs and Substance Act, 1985 (for short the 'Aot') in specia! case No. 30^002, whereby the appe'lant has been convicted under Seotion 20-B(b)(i) of the Act and sentenced to underoo R.l. for one and half vears and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for 4 months. (2) The case of the Drosecution, in brief, is that on 31.08.2002. Sub- inspector Alim Khan. R/rf-3, who was posted at Police Station Nagamar received an information that at Village Mal.gaon Chov»'k, one lady, a.ged 60 years vi/as carrying Gania in her bag and waiting for the vehicle. On receiving the said information. the Polioe followina the procedure, reaohed the spot, caucsht the accused. searched the aocused and found 3 K.as of Ganja in her possession. The S.H.O. P.S. Nagamar has recorded Dehatinaisi yide Ex.P-15 and lodged F.I.R. vide Ex.P-17. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the triat Court EL \ -^ (3) The trial Court framed charge against the accused/aDpellant under Section 20-B(b)(i) of the Act. After recording the evidence of the witnesses. the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Seotion 313 of Cr.P.C in which, she has denied the cireumstances appearina aaainst her and pieaded innocence and fa!se imolication. Aiter apD.rec'ation of the evidence and material available on record, the Special Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforementioned .n oara-l. (4) Learned counsei apDearina for the appeliant submits that tne iearned trial Court should have seen that the compliance of Drovisions under Section 42 and 50 of the Act are not followed by the prosecution, therefore, benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant. It is aiso submitted that the independent witness Ayati Bai, PW-1 has not supported the prosecution story and therefore. the trial Court has grossly erred in convicting the appeliant. It is clear from the statements of Ayati Bai, PW-1 that the seizure and other documents became doubtfu! and the benefit of doubt must have been aiven to the appellant. f5) Learned counsel for the aopellant further submits that the imouaned iudament be set aside and the accused/aDDellant be acqultted ofthe charae. Moreover. the aopellant has a'ready suffered the sentence awarded to her by the trial Court and she has aiso paid the fine amount and has been released from jail. (6) Learned counsel appearing for the respondenVState argued in support ofthe impugned judgment. f71 ! have heard iearned counsel for the Darties. perused the record and the imDuaned judament ofthe trial Court. (8) The prosecution in order to prove the guiit against the accused; examined three witnesses' namely Smt. Ayati Bai, PW-1, Jankul Toppo, PW-2 and A.lim Khan, PW-3. (9) Smt Avati Bai. PW-1 has stated in her deposition that before 2 months Poiice stated her that thev have cauaht Heeradai and cheoked the bag, in which Ganla was found. She did not know the quantity of Ganja bi.it stated that Gania '/•'as found. Ex.P-1 Panchnama, Ex. P-2 Notice and Ex. P-3 Ta'ashi Panchnama along with Ex.P-4,5,6,7.8 & 9 were signed by ^ her, By this way. the ground raised by the counsel for the appellant that Ayati Bai, PW-1 does not support the oase of prosecution is not acceptable. Jankul Toppo, PW-2 has already stated that the seized Ganja was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. |l!;Sil!^tel$:N!j"i^ •;nya (10) AIim Khan. PW-3 has stated in his dgoosition that on 31.01.2002, he was posted as in-charge of the Police Station Nagamar. On receiving information bv the informer that one lady carrying Ganja in her bag was Vf'aiting for a vehicle in Village Malgaon Chowk. On receiving She same, he preoared Danchnama Ex. P-3 and proceeded to the SDot. Thereafter. he lodged Rosnamchasana vide Ex.P-13. When he reached there, the accused was already present havina Gania. Alim Khan, PW-3 has seized the Gan|a from the accused/appellant and they had completed the other documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9. This vi'itness has also stated that he hirnself has comoleted ali the proceedinas and sent proper notice to the accused/appellant. After completing the sote proceedings; they have fiied the cha'lan against the accused/appellant. (11) On perusal of the impugned judgment and testimonies of the seizure witnesses, it is ciear that both the witnesses supported the seizure by Heeradai. (12) Having considered the facts and circumstances ofthe case, l am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. d3) In the result. conviction and sentence awarded by the learnec trial Court is maintained and the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge