W HIGH (:OuRT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILA$PUR grimmaa Aw“: mass of 20% Kulushwnr Drum 5/0 Tmsh! Drum Aged abouf 21 years We Makeshwar Ward Dham'ram P 5 and Dis? Dham‘ram f (C5) APPELLANT (In mi) Versus The Sm‘l'e cf Chhn'msgarh Through PSCm/ Kofwah Dhamfam Dish-1c? u Dhamfaru (C6) L w V aespémo’e 1 «a fgAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE oF_cr.\P.c.) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. 5km. J.) Ms Mmu Banerjez counsel for the appellanf Mr RaJendm Trlpufhn Pane! lawyer for the Smfe/respondenf . w ' ORAL quosMENT (Passed on 31" July. 2009) This appea! ls dmecied agamsf *he judgmen'r of convlcfmn and order of senfence dofed 6 9 2004 passed by 'rhe Special Judge under NDP3 Rmpur' m Special Cmmmnl Case No 43/2002 whereby and whereunder learned specml Judge offer holding The appellan'r guilty for The offence punishable under Secflon 20 B (I) of the Narcotlc Drugs Psychofroplc Subsfanees Ao‘r 1985, d (In shot-1' ‘Ac'r 1985‘) sen‘renced him f0 undergo rlgorousbmprlsonmenf for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs 20 000/- In default of payment of fine to farther , undergo rigorous imprlsonment for 6 months 2. Judgment of convictlon and order of sentence 1s challenged on the ground that Without there being an Iota of evidence and compliance of the mandatory provismns of the special Act the Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illealit ‘ I 7 k gy 2. Caselof the proserution m bmef !s the? Ashok Dwivedl (PW-3) was _ ' _ posfed on 5 5 2002 as Assvstan‘r Sub Inspector at police sfn‘hon Chy Ko‘rwa!’ was recewed Information from me mformorrr The? the oppellanf who was transpor‘hng cannabus ganja) m ruckshow m one whi're bug was 90mg 'ro his house > : He recorded panchnama vide Ex P/11 and also recorded graund for procurcmenf i of search warrant vnde Ex P/12 Rojnamcha Sanha was recorded wde Ex P/13C , and proceeded for spo‘r along wwh The witnesses 111a accused was Infmepmd by The rold par1y and informed fhe mformahon received from he mformom He has also Informed abouf hls rlghf andnafl'er faking consa'rr Vlde Ex P/4 fhe accused fok 1he search of pohce officials and wrrnesses Vlde Ex P/6 0n being search one Bag was found m possesslon of The accused Same was welghed wde Ex P/7 and found 12 200 kg of cannabis Articles were seized wde Ex P/8 Two was prepared Vlde Ex P/9 Accused was arres'red vlde Ex P/Z Police offlctals refurned 1’0 fhe police s'ta'hon wn'h the accused and ar'hcles where he lodged lime report wde Ex P/1 Properfy was kep‘r In Malkhma Vlde Ex P/15 Sampes were - sent for chemical analysis wde Ex P/16 and samples were found cannabis {ganja} l vide Ex ms _ , __ 1t i4 Affer recording fhe sta‘remen‘rs of The wiTnesses under SecTion 161 of [The Code and afTer completion of invesTigaTion charge sheeT wasnfiled before l lThe Special Judge, Raipur 5 . In order To prove The guilT of The accused/appellanT The prosecuTion has examined as many as 5 wiTnesses STaTemenT of The accused was recorded under l l l l isecTion 313 of The Code where he denied The circumsTances appearing againsT him and innocency and false implicaTion is claimed l l 16 Learned Special Judge afTer affording on opporTuniTy of hearing To The parTies convicTed and senTenced The appellanT as aforemenTioned 7. I have heard Mr Meenu Bmerjee counsel for The appellanT and Mr Rajendra TripaThi Panel lawyer for The STaTe/respondenT and perused The JudgmenT impugned and record of The courT below l i ‘ v 1“: pi l l 1 l 8. A1 fhe oufse‘r ‘eamed counsel for ma appelian? submws ‘tha? +ha appellan'r has served ouT The senfence Imposed upon him and he has baen’ relansed from Jail therefor-e she wam' fo argue only on Th: quasmn of legnllfy 1 of The convIcTion and argues ThaT The prosecu'hon has noT complied wITh The procedure Only sTaTemenT of ASSIsTonT Sub InspecTor Ashok Dwlved: was noT sufficuem to convm- fhe nppel‘an‘r m the alleged commlssion of offence l x 9. On The oTher hand learned counsel for The 5TaTe/respondmT supported fhe Judgmem lmpugned and argues fha'r conviction Is based on clinching and reliable evidence 10‘ Tn grader To upprecmfe fhe contenfuons of the parfles I have exommed the evidence adduced on behalf of ‘rhe prosecufuon Assistant Sub Inspecfor Ashok uwwedl (PW-3) has deposed fhof he has conducted proceedmg and: proved fhe documents from Exs P/l 1'0 P/18 5mm Inchorge Lnl Ji $hukla hoe? proved *he ‘FI R (Ex P/1) RoJu @ RoJkumar (PW-2) has nof sup wr‘tgd ‘rhe ease obumo (PW-4) Head ,e consfable has also no‘r mppor‘red 'l'he case of prosecuhon md pnosecufloni declared hlm hosflle. No‘l'hmg has been cross-examined by The aceused f0 Ashok Dwwed: (PW-3) To discard hus TesTImony In The absence of such adverse sTaTemenT Inspires confidence and TrusTworThy and sufflclem for warmnT oonvm‘hon againsT The appellanT and conwc‘hon ls based on reliable evrdenoe 11. I do noT find any IllegallTy in The JudgmenT of conmcTion and order of senTenoe ConsequenTly The appeal being devoid of merIT is llable 1'0 be dismissed and 11’ us hereby dismissed " of The prosecu'hon and prosecu'hon declared him hash Sdl- l l ‘ ’T.P. SHARMA Judge l 1‘ 1 E