IACOPO LOMBARDI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.9.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, whereby the accused-Appellant (hereafter referred to as 'the accused') had been convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further imprisonment for six months.

(2.) Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that HC Ramesh Lal (PW-10) along with HC Amar Chand, Constable Sanjay Kumar (PW-9), Ajay Kumar (PW-2) and Constable Mohar Dass (PW-5) was on patrol duty at MPCL Gate, Dhonkra on 17.2.2001. At about 6 p.m., he received a secret information that a person who had kept charas concealed in CD system, was coming from Manikaran in Taxi, bearing No. HPY-303. PW-10 recorded the information under Section 42 of the Act vide Ex.PW-1/A and sent the same to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Kullu, through PW-5. Thereafter, Ramesh Lal associated independent witnesses, namely, Amin Chand (PW-7) and Brahma Nand (PW-8) with the police party and came to the chowk. Around 6.30 p.m., the said taxi was seen coming from Manikaran side. It was stopped. The accused was sitting on the back seat of the taxi and was having a bag. The taxi was then taken to the compound of the police post. After inquiries about the particulars of the accused and verifying such particulars as disclosed by the accused from his passport, he was apprised that he was suspected of being in possession of charas and was given option whether he wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The accused consented to be searched by the police present on the spot vide memo Ex.PW-7/A. PW-10 gave his own search vide memo Ex.PW-7/B. Thereafter, the bag found in possession of the accused was checked. The bag contained CD system was taken to the verandah of the police post and was opened with the help of a screw driver. On opening of the CD system, charas wrapped in polythene paper concealed under a piece of woolen cloth was recovered. The charas so recovered was weighed and was found 1.200 kgs. Three samples of 25 grams each were separated from recovered charas and were made into separate parcels and were sealed with seal 'T'. The remaining charas was repacked in CD system in the same manner as it was earlier packed therein. The CD system was then made into a parcel and was sealed with seal 'T. The seal impression was separately taken, NCB forms in triplicate were filled in and after use, the seal was entrusted to PW-8. Recovery memo Ex.PW-7/C was prepared and was attested by the witnesses. The accused was then appraised of the offence committed y him and the punishment provided there for vide memo Ex.PW-7/D. PW-10 drew up ruqua Ex.PW-10/A and sent the same to Police Station, Kullu, through PW-9 for registration of a case and as a consequence, FIR Ex.PW-4/A came into being at Police Station, Kullu. On 18.2.2001, the case property was produced by PW-10 before SHO Kanwar Singh (PW-4), who resealed the same with seal 'H' impression whereof is Ex.PW-4/C. The case property was then deposited with MHC Bhagat Ram (PW-11) who entered the same in the Malkhana Register vide entry Ex.PW-11/A. On 20.2.2001, a sample of the case property was sent to C.T.L., Kandaghat vide RC Ex. PW-11/ B through constable Ramesh Kumar (PW-3). The report regarding chemical analysis of the sample is Ex.PW-6/A vide which the sample was found to be that of charas. On being satisfied of the commission of the offence by the accused, a charge sheet was submitted against him by the Officer In charge, Police Station, Kullu and the accused came to be tried on a charge under Section 20 of the Act by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu.

(3.) To prove the charge against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he denied the case of the prosecution as a whole and claimed that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. However, the accused did not lead any defence evidence.