SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 2001, whereby he has convicted the accused for an offence under Section 20 of the narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of rupees one lac In default of payment of fine, the accused has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the decision of this case are that on 29.6.2001 at 5.00 a.m. in the morning accused boarded bus No. HP -20 -0625. This bus belonging to HRTC had left Ani for Kullu via Shimla at 5.00 a.m. The accused boarded this bus after it had covered a distance of 1 -2 K.M. from Ani towards Luhri. When he boarded the bus, the accused was carrying a bag of black colour.

(3.) On the same date, PW -12, SI Parvez Iqbal, the then SHO, Police Station, Kumarsain, had proceeded with other police officials, including PW -9, H.C. Brij Lal and PW -10, C. Pradeep Kumar for routine patrolling/Naka out. .They had left Police Station, Kumarsain at 5.10 a.m. at about 7.30 a.m. they were at Bharara on National Highway -22. Bus No. HP -20 -0675 came from Kingal side towards Kumarsain. This bus was stopped from checking. The bus was driven by PW -7 Chaudhary Ram and PW -6 Madan Lai was the conductor of the said bus. When the police officials entered the bus, the accused was sitting on seat No. It is the case of the prosecution that on seeing the police party, the accused felt scared. Noticing this, PW -12 directed the accused to step out of the bus along with his bag. The bus driver and conductor also got down from the bus. One Geeta Ram PW -8 is also alleged to have got down from the bus. Because of the conduct of the accused, SI Parvez Iqbal, PW -12 suspected that the accused may be carrying some contraband. Therefore, in the presence of PW -6, Madan Lal, PW -7, Chaudhary Ram and PW -8 Gian Singh he gave an option to the accused of being searched before the gazetted officer vide consent memo Ex. PW -6/A.The accused gave his consent for being searched by the police party vide portion A to A of consent memo. It is alleged that he had signed the consent memo Ex. PW -6/A. Thereafter PW -12, in the presence of witnesses had checked the bag, Ex. P -3 of the accused. From the said bag he recovered charas, Ex. P -1 in the shape of billets. The charas was wrapped in a polythene paper. Apart from charas, a shawl, Ex. P -4, pant Ex. P -5, shirt Ex. P -6 and T -shirt, Ex. P -7 were also recovered from the bag, Ex. P -3. PW -12 had then sent a constable to call for some person to weigh the charas. PW -1 Balak Ram, who is a General Merchant at Bharara, had brought weights and scale and weighed the charas which was found to be 1500 gms. The police had drawn two samples of 50 gms. each, which were packed in two sealed parcels. Remaining charas was packed in the third parcel. All the parcels were sealed with seal H and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW -1/A. It is alleged that the seal was handed over to PW -6. Thereafter the Investigating Officer had prepared the report Ex. PW -5/A and sent the same to Police Station for registration of FIR. The accused person had been arrested after apprising him about the grounds of arrest vide memo Ex. PW -12/C. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also carried out the personal search of the accused. He prepared the NCB Form for chemical examination. Special report, copy of which is Ex. PW -2/A, was sent to the SDPO through H.C. Brahma Nand. The case property was deposited with Moharrar. H.C. Thereafter samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner. After receipt of the report, Ex. PX wherein samples were stated to be those of charas, the Investigating Officer had filed his challan. The accused was charged with having committed an offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses. Thereafter incriminating circumstances were put to the accused and his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused in defence examined only one witness. After considering the entire evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused, as detailed above.