MAHIMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-176
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 22,2013

Mahiman Singh Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) PW 1 SI Buddhi Lal lodged a first information report on 09.07.1996, at 4:00 p.m., in PS Jaulijibi, Dharchula, District Pithoragarh, which was registered as case crime no. 29 of 1996, under Section 20/22 N.D.P.S. Act, 1881. The incident allegedly took place on the selfsame day at 11:00 a.m. The distance between the place of incident and the PS concerned was one kilometer, hence there appears to be no delay in lodging the first information report. After the investigation, a charge sheet for the offence under Section 20/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act was submitted against the accused Mahiman Singh.
(2.) When the trial began and prosecution opened it s case, charge in relation to the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW 1 SI Buddhi Lal, PW 2 SI Bishan Ram Arya, PW 3 Banshi Lal Rana (Tehsildar) and PW 4 Constable Ravindra Singh were produced on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he said that he has falsely been implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. He was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 10 lacs, in default of payment of which, he was directed to undergo three years further simple imprisonment, vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2002. Aggrieved against the said Judgment and Order, present Criminal Appeal was preferred.
(3.) Prosecution led the evidence through PW 1 and PW 2. PW 1, in his examination-in-chief, said that on 09.07.1996, he was posted as S.O., Jauljibi. On the selfsame day, at 10:00 a.m., he along with Constable Bishan Ram and Driver Ramesh Chandra reached Jauljibi check post. PW 1 came to know through informer that a boy was carrying cannabis in a slaty bag in his lap. When PW 1 enquired from him, he did not say anything. PW 1 smelt some foul and therefore, apprehending that the bag might carry cannabis, offered the accused search before the Magistrate. Accused maintained silence. He disclosed his name as Mahiman Singh. PW 1 took the accused to S.D.M., Dharchula, at 1:50 p.m. S.D.M. and Tehsildar were not available. PW 1, therefore, took the accused to Naib Tehsildar B.S.Rana. In the presence of Naib Tehsildar, the accused was found in possession of charas (cannabis) worth 02 kg and 100 gms. Out of the recovered quantity of charas (02 kg and 100 gms), 100 gms. of cannabis was taken as representative sample. Recovery memo was prepared. A copy of the recovery memo (Ext. Ka-1) was given to the accused-appellant. His signatures were obtained on the same. Accused was arrested. Chik FIR (Ext. Ka-2) was lodged on the basis of recovery (Ext. Ka-1). An entry thereof was made in the G.D. PW 1 was cross-examined. He admitted that there was an Inter College in Jauljibi. The names of those, who were sitting in the jeep, were not noted by PW 1. The accused was taken to Dharchula for search. He did not prepare any memo of receipt of information by the informer. The sealed cannabis was consigned in malkhana. Since no person from the public was willing to be a witness to the incident, therefore, independent witness was not procured. He denied the suggestion made on behalf of the defence that the entire recovery of cannabis was false. In the cross-examination, he also said that Naib Tehsildar was In-charge Magistrate on the day this incident took place. The weight of cannabis was mentioned on the basis of guess work.;


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