MAYA KAUR Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2013-8-164
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on August 29,2013

Maya Kaur Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Ssi Rajpal Singh of PS Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, lodged a first information report against the accused-appellant Smt. Maya Kaur on 22.09.1999, at 9:30 p.m., which was registered as case crime no. 1039 of 1999, under Section 18/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985. The incident allegedly took place on the selfsame date at 7:20 p.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station concerned was 1 kilometer, hence there appeared to be no delay in lodging the first information report. Said FIR was lodged on the basis of recovery memo (Ext. Ka-2), wherein it was stated that 2 & 1/2 kg of poppy straw was found from the possession of the accused-appellant on 22.09.1999, at 7:20 p.m. After the investigation, a chargesheet (Ext. Ka-5) for the selfsame offence was filed against her (accused).
(2.) When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act was framed against the accused-appellant, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW 1 SI Kalyan Kumar, PW 2 Constable Sompal Singh and PW 3 SI Moinuddin (I.O.) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accusedappellant, in reply to which she said that nothing was recovered from her possession and she was falsely implicated in the crime. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, the accused was held guilty and was convicted under Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act, vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2002. She was directed to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of which, she was required to undergo three months' further rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, present Criminal Appeal was preferred by the appellant.
(3.) Prosecution led the evidence through PW 1 and PW 2. Both of the witnesses said that on 22.02.1999, they were posted in PS Kashipur. They were busy in maintaining the law and order situation. PW 1 and PW 2 met each other in the market. Both of them reached near Munshiram Chauraha. They saw a woman coming from the other side. PW 1 and PW 2 became suspicious. They stopped the woman at 7:20 p.m. She disclosed her name as Maya Kaur. She was having a bag. She disclosed that the bag contained poppy straw. She was offered to be searched by a gazetted officer/Magistrate, to which she declined. She gave consent-letter to this effect. SSI Rajpal Singh searched her. Poppy straw was fond inside the bag being carried by Maya Kaur. She could not place any license to keep the same. PW 1 prepared recovery memo (Ext. Ka-2) on the dictation of SSI Rajpal Singh (not examined). The police personnel including PW 1 and PW 2 appended their signatures on the same. Thumb impressions of the accused were got affixed on the recovery memo. The contraband was sealed. No independent witness could be procured. The contraband along with the accused was taken to the police station. Information to this effect was given to the superior officers of the police through R.T. Set. As said above, PW 3 SI Moinuddin was the investigating officer, who, after obtaining the report of Forensic Science Laboratory and being satisfied that the accused committed the offence, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant.;


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