DAYANAND BHARATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant has been convicted under section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the Act) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs, 10,000/ -. In default he will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that one Atma Kumar, Inspector, Customs, Purnea filed a complaint in the court of the District and Sessions Judge -cum -Special Court, Purnea disclosing therein that on 24.6.1998 at 6 A.M., a casual information was received by Superintendent, Custom(P), Purnea regarding transporting of Ganja from Assam by a truck bearing registration no. AS -01 A/3931 passing through N.H. 31 proceeding to Buxar via Purnea. The Superintendent, Custom (P), Purnea contacted the Assistant Commissioner (P), Forbesganj on phone immediately and informed him about the entire fact and thereafter the Assistant Commissioner Custom (P) Forbesganj constituted a preventive party under the leadership of Sri P. M. Srivastava, Superintendent, Custom (P), Purnea to intercept the said truck. The preventive party left Purnea office at 8 A.M. on the same day for interception of the said truck and for that purpose they started road patrolling on N.H. 31 in between Baisi to Gerabari. Further it is alleged that at about 10 P.M. on the same day when the patrolling preventive party was coming back from Gerabari side, they located the said truck no. AS -01A/3931 coming from Purnea side and on seeing the truck patrolling party gave a signal to stop but the truck driver avoiding the signal proceeded ahead with high speed and then preventive party after chasing the said truck for about 2 K.M. could intercept and stopped the said truck near Bangarha. The preventive party gave their identification to the driver of the truck and also explained their purpose to stop the truck and on inquiry, the driver of the truck disclosed his name to be accused Dayanand Bharti. Khalasi of the truck slipped away taking advantage of the darkness but his name was disclosed by the driver of the truck. The preventive party told the driver that they got information that the truck is carrying Ganja but the driver denied and then preventive party expressed their desire to search the truck and for that purpose, they also gave option to the driver to get the truck searched in presence of the Magistrate if he so likes to which driver gave his reply in negative. In the meantime some persons assembled there and then preventive party officers in presence of the independent witnesses after observing all the legal formalities, made search of the truck which was loaded with oil cakes. On search, from the truck, 5 quintals of Ganja in plastic packets kept under the oil cakes bags were recovered and a seizure list was prepared in presence of two local witnesses. The recovered Ganja on weighment was found about 5 quintals of the value of Rs. 25,00,000/ -. A panchnama was also prepared in presence of independent witnesses and the driver of the truck signed over the seizure list and the Panchnama. Samples were also taken from the seized Ganja in presence of the witnesses for test. Further it has been alleged that the driver of the truck made his voluntary confessional statement in presence of two local witnesses and the driver stated that Arbind Singh got lodged Ganja in the truck and promised to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/ - as freight and the said Arbind Singh is habitual smuggler of Ganja from Assam to Bihar. The driver was also interrogated by Superintendent of Custom(P), Purnea and he was arrested and forwarded to the Special Court alongwith all relevant papers. The entire facts were reported to the concerned authority for proper action and instruction and on receiving the instruction from concerned authority, a complaint was filed on the basis of which cognizance was taken and subsequently the trial concluded with the result as stated above.

(3.) THE appellant pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.