gsamwags: A13)“ §m§ mqwaWW mag£$g agqg. awramgmqgag a, mag //.A. . . \mmg Ela agmnmg a»“E? g. Wqa ,mm ma. ‘immw “ME “i4 "$34 gag. «mAw “E: 4%? Vt ”amJmq w? i gQmaJaw \ % WW. wgmyagmamm @m “am4&3 $4 yam: “amiaadpn g4 h.w. $§24 a? mmgwa m3. m3 mama? 1111‘91’111111.111111111‘111i11$1$91‘1 i . _ :rk ..uv;\[.llll} 1 1N THE-HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISSARH ATBILASPUR QBIMINAL AFFEAL No.1150g2000 ‘ 9 ‘“‘” kri shanchand Pani VS. State cf M.Pa (C.G.) ’ J‘LII)G M E N T Per- HomRS. Garggi : { o The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16a3—2000 passed in Special CaSe No.78/99 by the learned t Special Judge (N.D.P.S.) convicting the appellant under- Section 2o(b)(i)/8 of Narcotic Drugs and PsychotroPic Substances Act sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and pay fine of Rs.500€)/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, has filed this app eal. 2., The prosecution case in brief is“ that on Eng-1999 P¢W.5 D.R. Singh, the Station HouseVOfficer of G.R.P., Raipur received an information that the appellant was carrying contrabands with him. Said D.R. Singh recorded the information, sent the report to the Deputy Superinw tendent of Police and proceeded to the spot with the witnesses. On‘jihe railway platform, he accosted the accused, gave him a notice underSection 5O of the Act and after obtaining his consent searched the attache and the bags carried by the accuseda About [+5 kg. ganjaein was seized from the possession of the accused, The seized eontrabands were weiefed on the spot, two samples u of 50-50 gms Were drawn, seized ganja andv sample Were separately sealed. the accused,the witnesses and the Investigating Officer alongwith the contrabands came back to the police station. The xcused was thereafter arrestedo A First In£ormation Report was registered and a further infomation was sent to the immediate Officer superior that the accused has been arrestedo Thereafter,’ u ‘ the sealed contrabands and the samples Were kept in Malkhana. 0n 7-9—199§ through'PJ/V. 4 Gangaram the Asamples‘Were sent to F.S.L. who served the said samples to F.S.L. on 8-9-1999. The Forensic Science Laboratory vide its report datedl8/.9.1999 informed the Superintendent 0f Police (Rail), Raipur that the sample‘s were meeting the standard provided for ganja. Armed with the documents, the seizure memos, the statements of the witnesses and the report of the F.S.L., the police filed the challan against the accused. As the applicant abjured the guilt, he was put to trial . 3 . The trial court afforded proper ogportunity- to the parties to lead evidence. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court recorded a findi‘ng against the accused convicted and sentenced him as detailed above. 4 . shri 0 P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the independent Witnesses P W 2 mtan Singh and P.w.3 Mahavir have not supported the prosecution case and as the samples remained With P W 4 Gangaram for almost about one month, therefore, and a s the independent Witnesses whoware available on the railway platform have not been acamined by the prosecution or by the investigating officer, therefore also, the accused deserves to be acquitted. 5° Learned counsel for the State subngxwta the , ix € statements of P.W.2 Putan Singh and P.W.‘4 Mahavir would clearly show that they had been won over. He submits that almOst about 45 kg. ganja was recovered from the possessionof the appellant,therefore, the defence of false implication 'is absolutely ruled-outs He also submits that’the applicant is trying to maiike a capital out of some typographical mistake which .rfsCrski: Win the statement of Gangaram {{P.W.4), he has ‘prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6 . §.w.5 D.R. Singh has clearly stated that he received the information £roman informer that the / accused was carrying ganjao He recorded the said information in Rojnamcha Sanha no.219 which has been proved before the Court as Ex.P/16. From his statement, it also appears that he immedia tely sent the information to the Deputy Superintendent of Policeo From his statement. it also appears that he proceeded to the spot for effecting seizure and searcho ELP/é proved by~m P‘.W.5 D.R.Singh shows that accused was informed of his right of being searcghed either before a gazetted officer or before the Magistrate. ‘Ihe accused instead of exercising his Option consented to the search by P.W.5 D.R. Singh. In different nunioer of bags almost about 45 kg. ganja was found. t was weighed on the spot, the samples were drawn and the memos were prepared on the $0ta EgP/lo is the document which shows that the ganja was Weighed, samples were drawn and the contrabands were properly sealed. The accused was brought to the police station where he ‘ was arrested under Bx°P/12 and first information report Ex.P/20 was recorded against Wafter an t — 4 9 information under m.P/2 was again sent to the Superintendent of Police (Rail) that in a successful search the accused was arrested, On the material points regarding compliance cf the provisions of N.D.P.S.Act, the witness has proved the formalities. P.W.1 S.K.Pandey is a Clerk from tge office of Superintendent of mlice (Rail) . He has proved two facts that in the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rail) the information. was received that the Station House officer (P.W.5 D.R. Singh) had received the information about the contrabands and that a case has been registered against the accused; True it is that P.W.2 Putan Singh and P.W.3 Mahavir have turned hostile but the fact remains whether P.W.5 D.R. singh is a reliable witness or not. < V . 7‘ 80 Though varioussuggestions have been given to D.Rc Singh but there are no suggestion to him that he has planted huge quantity of 45 kg. ganja either in the luggag or Qn the person of the accusede The quantity which has been found with the accused itself wguld rule out the possibility of plantation and false ‘implic ationn 9 o so far as the delay in sending the sample to the F.S.L. is concerned. the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appella nt deserves to be rejected being misconceived. It appears that due to some typographical mistake it was rECorded in the cross-examination of P.W.4 Gangaram that he received the sample on 7-8-89 and deposited the same with F°S.L¢ on 8-9-99. Document m.P/ 14A shows that the sample was given to him on 7-9-99. me imposeibility of the argument would also be writ large from the fact that the alleged incident took plhace onii -5- 3-9-99, therefore, about 27 days prior tQ the incident the sample could not be given to P.W.4. What was seized on 3-9-99 could not be supplied to anybody on 7—8—99“ 10 . So far as compliance of the mandatory provisions o£ N.D.P.S. Act are concerned, from the statements of P.W.5 D.R.Singh it would ch arly appear that he had Scrupulously Wm followed the mandatory requirements of law» 11 » The findings rem rded by the court below do not suffer _with any perversity. After going through the entire evidence afresh, I am unable to hold that the. court below was unjustified in convicting and sentencin the appell ant . 12 . The appeal is dismissed¢ Sd/- R.S. Garg Judge gigs-2001 .‘r‘ 5x3“: {\I’\ £0 mm g