HAYAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-237
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 31,2013

HAYAT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) PW1 S.O. Chandra Singh Bisht, police station, Kapkot set the criminal law into motion by lodging an FIR on 20.08.2007 against accused-appellant Hayat Singh, which was registered as case crime no. 167 of 2007, under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act). After the investigation, a charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act was submitted against the accused. When the trial commenced and prosecution opened it s case before Special Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, charge for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act was submitted against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(2.) PW1 S.O. Chandra Singh Bisht, PW2 Head Constable Arjun Singh, PW3 Constable Sanjay Kumar, PW4 S.I. Arvind Kumar, PW5 Constable Nandan Singh Rawat and PW6 S.I. Pritam Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. Accused also said that he was coming from Bharadi to Bageshwar in a taxi. A bag was kept in the taxi, which was illegally fastened on him. Accused was made to confess that the cannabis (charas) belonged to him. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, accused-appellant Hayat Singh was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act. He was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of which, the convict was required to undergo further simple imprisonment for 2 years, vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.10.2008. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, present criminal jail appeal was preferred by the convict-appellant.
(3.) Prosecution led the evidence through PW1 Chandra Singh Bisht, Station Officer of police station Kapkot. PW1 said that on 20.08.2007, at 08:20 A.M., he alongwith other police personnel started patrolling duty. They proceeded from police station Kapkot on a Government vehicle. At around 10:15 A.M., police personnel found a person carrying black coloured bag. Said person was coming from Bharadi. As soon as he saw the police personnel, he started running away. He was apprehended by the police. Accused disclosed his name as Hayat Singh. PW1 enquired from him as to what was there inside the bag. Accused told that there was charas inside the bag. Accused said that he brought it from Jhooni and was taking the same to Bageshwar for sale. Accused could not produce the license to keep the cannabis. PW1 offered the accused to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, to which accused declined, saying that he had full faith in PW1. PW1 alongwith other police personnel made a search of each other to ensure that they were not carrying any objectionable material. Accused gave the consent letter (Ext. Ka-1) under his thumb impression. After obtaining the consent letter (Ext. Ka-1), PW1 made a search of the bag, which was found in possession of Hayat Singh. Two and a half kilogram of charas was seized from his possession. The same was weighed by weighing machine. 100 gms. of charas was taken out as a representative sample. The contraband was sealed in a bag. Specimen seal was prepared. PW1 proved Mat. Ext. 1 and said that the same was found in the possession of the accused. While the contraband was produced as Mat. Ext. 1, the bag was produced as Mat. Ext. 2. The accused was informed of the offence complained of against him. He was taken into custody. Recovery memo (Ext. Ka-2) was prepared, which contained the signatures of the police personnel. Accused also affixed his thumb impression on Ext. Ka-2. The cannabis was deposited in the malkhana. Accused was kept in the police lockup. A written report of the arrest of the accused was given to his relatives. Such written information was proved as Ext. Ka-3. When the police personnel took the search of each other, a memo (Ext. Ka- 4) of the same was prepared. The sample seal was also proved as Ext. Ka-5. When PW1 reached the police station, an intimation about the confiscation of cannabis was given to the senior police officers. The same was indicated in G.D. No. 12 at 12:30 P.M. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.