Lilamoy Ghosh, J. - (1.)The appellant, Ram Pher Jadav was charged under section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and convicted there under by the Sessions Judge, Howrah. He was sentenced to R.I. for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default, to undergo further R.I. for three years. Ram Pher Jadav has appealed against that order of conviction and sentence.
(2.)The prosecution made out a case that the appellant was carrying some quantity of heroin on 10.9.1989. The S.I., Sri Kalyan Kumar Maitra, was on petrol duty. His version is that on 10.9.1989 in course of night petrol duty, he reached near Gate No. 2 of Shibpur B.E. College when he found the accused proceeding with a bag in hand. His movement appeared to Sri Kalyan Kumar Maitra (P.W. 1) as suspicious and his answer was unsatisfactory. P.W. 1 claims that the person was apprehended and then some substance in a cellophane paper was recovered, which was found out to be heroin. P.W. 1 prepared a seizure list at the spot, as he claims. We further get from P.W. 1 that two witnesses, Ibrahim Ansari (P.W. 3) and Gopal Banerjee (P.W. 4), were available. The prosecution case is that those two witnesses were having together morning walk, when they were requested by the police Officer to co-operate and sign the seizure list. The articles found including the cellophane paper containing the powder (Mat. Ext. IV) were seized as per claim of P.W. 1. Thereafter, the accused was taken to the Shibpur P.S. with the articles seized. In the police station, P.W. 1 lodged a complaint in writing. A formal F.I.R. was drawn up. Shibpur P.S. Case No. 226 dated 10/9/1989 under section 21 of the NDPS Act was started against the appellant. The investigation of the case was taken up by P.W. 6, Sri Ranjit Kumar Das. The articles seized were sent to the Director. (Drugs) Central Public Health and Drugs Laboratory. The expert report was that the Black-lump was containing heroin. After completing investigation, P.W. 6 submitted charge sheet against the accused under section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985. During trial, six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The accused did not examine any witness.
(3.)On consideration of the materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge came to the finding that the accused was guilty. So he convicted the accused and passed sentence, as referred to before.