- (1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. Heard Mrs. Raj Laxmi Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned AGA.
(2.) THIS appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 31-3-1993, passed by Sri G. P. Srivastava, Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, in ST No. 21 of 1991 convicting and consequently sentencing the appellant under Section 20 of the NDPS Act to 10 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to 3 years RI. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a resident of village Trivedinpur. He was running a flourmill on the date of occurrence, i. e. 16-4-1991. The SHO, PS Gajner, District Kanpur Dehat received an information from an informer that this appellant is indulging into sale of Charas regularly. Believing the information as correct, PW 1 SHO Chandra Pal Singh planned to organize a raid and proceeded for village Trivedinpur along with some constables, 2 S. Is. and a Head Constables. Abandoning the jeep at the outskrit of village Trivedinpur the raiding party preceded on foot slowly and stealthily, avoiding being noticed by the villagers, upto the flourmill of this appellant. A little before the flourmill the informer went away pointing towards the appellant, PW 1 SHO Chandra Pal Singh noticed that he was sitting on a Chabutara (platform) and two persons standing in front of him negotiating to purchase some article. The raiding party swooped on the appellant. He was apprehended. On being apprehended, his person was searched and a plastic packet containing 1 kg. of Charas (in rods) was recovered from him. He then was asked to produce the licence, but he failed not produce the same. He was then told that he has committed an offence under Sections 18/20 of the NDPS Act and since the offence is cognizable accordingly he is being arrested. He was then taken into custody. Thereafter, he was asked whether he wants to given his search before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Police Officer. As is commonly detailed in such FIRs the accused appellant showed his disinclination to go to any Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Two samples, each weighing 24 gms. , were drawn from the recovered Charas at the spot. Rest of the Charas was sealed in a packet. The appellant was brought to the police station. On a chemical examination, both the samples were found to contain Charas. The report is Ext. Ka-3a. The appellant was charged under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. He claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case, produced PW 1 SO Chandra Pal Singh of PS Gajner, PW 2 Countable Ashok Kumar Pandey is the person who had taken the samples to the chemical examiner. PW 3 is Head Constable Darbari Lal. He had taken down the written report and also received the recovered articles along with the samples. PW 4 is SI S. B. Singh of PS Gajner. He has investigated the case.
(3.) THE statement of the appellant was recorded. He, however, has denied the recovery and claimed his false implication at the instance of the police. He also stated that the policeman of PS Gajner were not making his payment for the supply of rice and oil. On demand, he was abused. He was threatened with serious consequences if he made any demand of his money. He was picked up in the night from his house. THEy pressed his mouth so that he may not raise any alarm. He had examined in support of his case three defence witnesses. Dw 1 is Ragho Rai Singh. He deposed about the arrest of the appellant in the night from his house. He also admitted that some quarrel also took place. He further proved that the policeman used to purchase rice and oil from the shop of the appellant. Four months prior to the incident police of PS Gajner had taken 4 tins of mustered oil and 2 bags of rice from his shop on the pretext that there is some function at the house of SO. The payment will be made later on. When Pancham Singh demanded its price, he was threatened and challenged with dire consequences.;