3^Er ^|^t<^<4, ^•MJI<S, (s!0!^y HW^l ^TRW 3n^r Ti^^ ((i^^l<s<<ST) ^T^T^T'f^it^1 ^^T3??^T ^RT^ ^^T^Trt^?^?^T HIGILCOURT OF CHHATmSGARH AT BILASPWRT CRIMINAL APPEAlL N0.1726 of 1999 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Present : Ms. Sunita Jain, amicus c-j Mr. Arun Sao, GA for the ^ Dhirendra Mishra, J This appeal is directed a; '^Prf^Ffl~;T 'HTR'^f ^ 'f^St ipsl^K i73tRm3n^T R^GHU S/0 HARI, A^ed about 20 years, resident of P4naraguda, Koraput, Orrisa. /s TIftE STATE OF M.P. ^riae on behalf of the appellant. •tate/respondent. ORAL JtJDGMENT (21.0^.2007) ;ainst the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22njd February 1999 passed in Special Case No. 53/98 whereby learned Special Court, Bastar has convicted the appellant Raghujunder Section 20 B(l) read with Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for.brevity 'the Act'), and sente^iced to undergo R.I. of three years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-,| in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. of SIK montlis. 2. At the outset learned coijinsel during pendency of this appe^^ for the State submitted that 1 the appellant has already been GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007 — 5G.GOO J^cT '-^i^l<vi^, «>TTl'yJI<5, f^^i^y 'W^T *NI<sh""""""""""""""""""""""""""--"'^ 3^?r ^^^ (1i?^^) '^TT^T^ fer^ ^affsn^r ^-qfe ^eleased from jail after undergo Ijiim by the impugned judgment. i^?^ ^n'3?n^r 2 ^ig the jail sentence imposecl on ^. Notice issued by this Coui served on him and it has returnec ^.ppellant does not reside in the |hese circumstances, Ms. Sunitaj ^uriae to represent the appellan behalfin his absence. Ms. Sunita Jain, learned ^.ppellant has been prosecuted o4 ^anja vide Ex.P/14 from possess^ jbraveling in a bus on 31st Decem^ Jthe time of incident nine persons the alleged recovery proceedingsj Bhe further submitted that tUi ^rafepN 1RTR^f ^* ftiZT ^N^R ^'STRP?3?T^T t to the appellant could not be unserved with a report that the address given in the notice. In Jain was appointed as amicus and argue this appeal on his imicus curiae submits that the the basis of recovery of 10 kg of on of the appellant while he was 3er 1997. She submitted that at were alighted from the bus and were held in the police station. independent witnesses were bresent in the bus, however, th^ir statements were not recorded j: and there is manipulation with re^spect to time of the incident in all the documents proved by the inv< ), which makes the whole inves|:igation doubtful. The contraband was seized on 31.12.1997, how' stigating officer T.S. Thakur (PW- ;ver, samples of the same were sent to Forensic Science Laborat^ry on 31.1.1998 and there is no explanation for the delay. GRPRJ— FS/'246—2/2007 — 50.0GQ. ^^ •^I'MI^^, ^rTi'y4!^, f^rey •Nl^^l tbNS*""""""""""""""""""""""""""--^ 200 3nt?T x^^ (^f^^) 3T?^T^ R^i^ ^mSTT^T '^yiWHftn ^?i^f '^i^f<n41'r ^i^<^I*'^1^^tTF7i-Ld{< ^3TO^3T?^r |5. On the other hand, learned jsupported impugned judgment of] 16. I have heard learned coun^ jmaterial available on record. counsel for the State/respondent the trial Court. el for the parties and perused the 7. Briefly stated case of the p}rosecution is that on 31.12.1997 on a secret information that cert^in persons are carrying ganja in a State Transport Bus, the in^ information and thereafter the b1 persons in the presence of wit^ driver and the conductor of the| |restigating officer recorded the [is was raided by a team of police hiesses. With the consent of the bus, the bus was searched and during search the appellant w|io was sitting in the bus with luggage between his legs, was inj which was possessed by the recovered. Thereafter, samples 4 for chemical examination to F$ jterrogated. On search of the bag appellant, 10 kg of ganja was >f the contraband seized were sent SL and after examination it was confirmed that it was ganja. Aftbr completing investigation charge sheet was flled. 8. Conviction of the appella]jit PW-5 T.S. Thakur who has narr^i during investigation and from witness, it is found that after re^ was raided near octroi situated rfear search the raiding party gave is based on the statements of i.ted the procedure adopted by him iperusal of the statement of this ceiving secret information the bus police station. Before effecting own search and thereafter the tHeir GRPRJ— FS/2^6—2/2007— 5Q.QOO. 3:^5T ^i<4t^, ^rTl^^KS, [®!(r'>!'!-t^< Nl^ldl '%W^' •-^ 31T^?T '^T^ ( 4<^?^<^T ) ^sn^T^i'^^ ^m3:?T^T W^ '^TTW TTf^T 3^^T (^l<Ll?<rt41ti ^l^<ri? ^f fs^ TT^K^K "^ ^tftFr'snt^r jippellant was informed about hi^ l|>e searched in the presence of a|-iy 4nd only after obtaining consen^ |earched, in which 10 kg of ganjaj tjhe statement of this witness this ^rovisions of the Act have been 4fficer and the same have beeik ^tatement, which is also substan| l^y him. right that if he desires, he may Magistrate or gazetted officer of the appellant, his bag was was found. After going through ^ourt is satisfied that mandatory followed by the investigating proved by him in his Court iated by the documents proved djuly The version of this witne jtatement of Ramal Singh (PW-3) |s is duly corroborated by the (jlriver of the bus, who has stated t|iat on the date of incident he wajs driver of the bus, the bus was i|itercepted by the police, nine p^ssengers were interrogated and cjn search of their bags narcotici was found in their possession. lhe panch witness Narayan Si^gh (PW-2) in whose presence karch and seizure were affected has stated that he recognizes I^aghu and from his possession J 10 kg of ganja contained in a FJlastic bag, which was held by ^ppellant was traveling in the bus| qVer the documents of Exs.P/ 1 to ^ |0. As for the arguments of t|-iat there is ovenvriting in thi c^ocuments proved by the ijdmitted the overwriting, howev< le^rned the appellant, was seized. The He also admitted his signature V6andP/8toP/10. counsel for the appellant thb time of incident in all the inve|stigating officer, the 1.0. has ^r, he has explained that the GRPRJ— FS/246—2/^007 — 50.COO. f?) T5S)" -qi^ll^^, ^Tfl'y^KS, ?si<TI>!^^< 'W?^T %^n^" •-^ 200 31T^T X?3R? ( li^l<s8<^ ) ^l^T^T fc;liq^' j ^SH^TI^T ^'RN' ^ i4istake crept in inadvertently anjd the same was subsequently, C(|)rrected. Even othenvise, it is ncj Ifl r^ n1 n| Pl tt! Ifl I^TT^K ^Tf^T 3T^T chl<MJ<n<ifl'i TTR^ff ^ 'feTSt <Hl^l< '^'3^Fr37I^T t case of the appellant that the .vestigating officer had any ill vfill against the appellant, as a ;sult of which he was framed in tljie crime in question. Therefore, inor discrepancy such as overwr^ting in the timing of incident or 3t forwarding the contraband |for chemical analysis to FSL 'omptly, will not vitiate convicti(j)n of the appellant considering ie fact that raid was conducted oijily after getting a credible secret formation that number of personjs were traveling in the bus with g^.nja and subsequently, it was est| nJ3t only from the appellant but fr| c^ntraband was seized. 1 |l. In the result, the appeal pref] nlerits, the same is liable to be| Ismissed. iblished to be true as on search 3m other eight persons also the Tred by the appellant is sans o^- dismissed and is accordingly, Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007 .— 50..000.