9 /2008 (\Wg‘ Janakdas Choudhary, m 5/0. Shri Rampal Choudhary, Aged about 22 years, Occupation - Labourer R/o. Village Aamudad, P.S. Rajnagar, Disfricf Ahuppur (MR) nsw—(ég). VERSUS STaTe of Chhaffisgar'h Through P.S. Arjuni, Dis’rf. Dhammr‘i & ' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 29 0f2008' APPELLANT Janakdas Choudhary VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Shri Abhay TiWan‘, counsel for the appellant. Shri Pravin Das, Dy. G.A. for the State. , CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRINIINAL PROCEDURE. J U D G M E N T (05.01.2011) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the Special Judge, Dhamtari, iii Special Criminal Case No. 36/2007 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 20 (b)(ll)(C) ofthe Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 . v (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay tine of Rs. 1,00,000, in default ofpayment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. Brieffacts ofthe case are that on 13.03.2007, upon receiving a secret information to the eifect that Ganja is being transported by someone in a bus coming 00m Jagdalpur to Raipur bearing registration No. CG04E/0281, the information was given to the superior officers and atter summoning the witnesses and preparing the panchnama EX. P-l7 C, the competent otficers stopped the said bus near Shyamtarai check post. On search the accused/appellant was found sitting in the bus along with four Rexene bags of Ganja and upon being asked it was admitted by him that all those four bags belong to him. The accused was informed about all his legal rights and was given an opportunity to get himself searched by Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and aiter obtaining his consent, the search memo was prepared s . vide Ex. P—2. Vide Ex. P-5 the seizure was made and the accused/appellant was found in possession of 48 Kg Ganja (13.5 + 11.5 + 14 + 9 = 48) in different four bags. Thereafter. the weighment of the seized contraband was \ , ,9,— done vide EX. P-4 and 8 separate packets were prepared and all were duly sealed by the authorities. The accused/appellant was arrested vide Ex. P-6 and the spot map Ex. P-7 was prepared by the Patwari. Information was again sent to the higher authority and FIR Ex. P—9 was lodged. Therealier Vide Ex. P—14, the samples were sent for its chemical examination and the report was obtained Vide Ex. P-23 li‘om which it was established that the seized articles were Ganja. Alter completing all the formalities the charge sheet was filed on 21.3.2007 under section 20 B ofthe NDPS Act. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 'of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. Aher hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant for the offence as mentioned above. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Panch witnesses namely Suresh Kumar (PW.1)- booking agent ofthe bus and Laxman Singh Rao (PW- 2) have not fully supported the prosecution case. He thither submits that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is not established that it is the accused/appellant who was found in possession of the contraband item. He further submits that even the weighment of the contraband was not done in presence of these two witnesses. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, from the evidence it is clear that immediately alter getting down horn the bus, the person who was carrying the said Ganja had run away and therefore, in fact, the actual culprit has not been arrested and the applicant has been made escape goat. He further submits that there are several procedural irregularities in completing the inVestigation and considering all these irregularities collectively, the benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellant. According to him even the seizure was not made on the spot t and subsequently all the formalities have been completed by the prosecution. 6. On the other hand supporting the impugned judgnent it has been argued by the learned counsel for the State that the accused was in exclusive possession of 48 Kg of Ganja and this fact was admitted by the ’3’ accused/appellant. 'He further submits that the Panch witnesses Suresh Kumar (PW~1) and Laxman Singh Rao (PW-2) have also supported the prosecution case. He iimher submits that the FSL report (Ex. P-23) is conclusive and it is established beyond any doubt that the seized contmband was Ganja. He timber submits that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have been duly complied with by the prosecution and there is no lacuna in the same. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 8. Suresh Kurnar (PW-1) who was traveling in the bus as a booking agent has stated that on 13.3.2007 the bus was stopped by the police authorities near forest barrier Dhamtari and thereaiter the dickey of the bus was opened but nothing was found. He has stated that the accused/appellant was sitting on the back seat of the bus along with four bags and he was asked by the police party as to whether he wants to be searched byv the gazetted oEicer or by the Magistrate. After obtaining his consent panchnama Ex. P-l was prepared which was duly sigied by him. He has hirther stated that the accused/appellant had admitted the fact ofthe ownership of the bags. Though he has stated that the weighment of the alleged contraband was not made in his presence but he has admitted the fact that he has signed on the weighing memo (Ex. P-4). He has thither admitted the fact that the Ganja was taken out from the main bag for sample and separate envelops were prepared and duly sealed. He has admitted the fact that the seizure memo Ex. P—S was made in his presence and the same was duly signed by him. He has also. stated that the accused/appellant was arrested vide Ex. P-6 and the spot map Ex. P-7 was prepared by the Patwan' in his presence. In cross-examination, this witness has reiterated that the accused/appellant had admitted the fact that all the packets belong to him and thereaiter he was arrested. He has categorically denied the suggestion given by the defence that seizure was not made in his presence. Laxman Rai (PW-2)- the bus conductor and panch witness, has also tillly supported the prosecution case and has made almost similar statement as made by Suresh Kumar (PW-1). He too has described the entire action taken by the police authority and the admission made by the accused/appellant regarding the ownership of the bags. Ram Bhagat Pakara (PW-5) is the Patwari who had prepared the spot map Ex. P-7. Bhaktu Ram Sahu (PW-6)- 4: § x ;. -L‘m— the Head Constable and the reader of the S.D;O. police, Dhamtan' had conflrmed the fact that the infonnation was sent to him on 13.3.2007 itself. Raj Kumar Patel (PW-7) ~ the Head Constable has stated that the seized bags were deposited in Malkhana. Dinu Madmnde (PW-9) who had accompanied the search team and the witness of search memo (Ex. P-2) and weighing memo (Ex. P-4) has also supported the prosecution case. Pravin Shukla (PW- 10) is the witness ofthe document Ex. P-14 & 15 by which the sample ofthe seized contraband was. sent to the FSL Lab. K. B. Nage (PW-l I) - the Investigating OiTicer has duly proved the case. 9. From the evidence as adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution has duly proved his case beyond any doubt. Even in Section 313 Cr.P.C statement the accused has failed to give any explanation about the possession of the contraband item and has merely denied the allegation. Counsel for the appellant has'not argued any other point and has failed to point out any illegality in the judgnent of the Court below. The impugied judgment and order is in accordance with law and there is no need of interference. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. ’sdl- l 7 Pritinker Diwaker ., Judge l x :