B.K. Narayana, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ravindra Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State. None has appeared on behalf of the Union of India. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th April 1991 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 331 of 1988, State v. Chandra Bhushan Singh @ Ragghoo Singh and another, under Section 18 and 23 of N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Baragaon, District Varanasi convicting the appellant under Section 18 and 23 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentencing him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ - for his conviction under Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act and further 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ - under Section 23 of the N.D.P.S. Act together with default clause. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 17th of June 1987 Sri K.K. Rai, Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Central Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the "N.C.B.") received a secret information that Sri Chandra Bhushan Singh resident of Baragaon was involved in illicit trafficking of sale and purchase of Nepali ganja and opium. Acting on the basis of above secret information, Sri Rai after the receipt of above secret information contacted his colleagues Alok Kumar Srivastava, C.L. Yadav and others and proceeded for Baragaon town at 11 A.M. On reaching Baragaon, the above team of the Officers of the N.C.B. took two witnesses of public namely Vimlesh Singh and Chandrika Prasad after disclosing them the purpose of the said raid and reached at the residential premises of Chandra Bhushan Singh with a view to carry out raid. At his residence the team found Sri Chandra Bhushan Singh sitting inside in his front room and the officers of the N.C.B. gave their introduction and told him the purpose of the raid. It is alleged that the officers of the N.C.B. offered the accused Chandra Bhushan Singh to personally search the officers of the team and the witnesses but the accused felt no such necessity, therefore, the search of the house of the accused Chandra Bhushan Singh was conducted and from the room wherein the accused was sitting 25 'purias' of ganja and opium kept in a polythene bag were recovered. From another room of the accused 8 kgs ganja kept in a gunny bag was recovered. The total weight of the recovered ganja kept in the gunny bag and purias was found to be 8 kgs 160gms whereas that of the recovered opium was found to be 25 gms. Also apart from above ganja and opium, three copies, one diary, four letters and a weighing machine were found in the house of the accused. The officers of the N.C.B. took three samples each from the recovered ganja and opium in presence of the witnesses and the accused in three separate envelopes which were sealed and signed by the officers and the witnesses on the spot. The remaining ganja and opium were also sealed separately in the presence of the witnesses, officers and accused. The signatures of the officers, witnesses and accused were obtained on the seal, sample and remaining recovered articles. One sample of ganja and one sample of opium was sent for chemical examination under a letter to the Central Revenue Laboratory, New Delhi. Subsequently a report was received from the examiner that the opium sent was not at all sufficient for carrying out the analysis. Thereafter another sample was drawn before the CJM, Varanasi and the same was sent to the scientist for examination. Memo of recovery was prepared on the spot in the presence of accused, witnesses and the officers who signed the same then and there and a copy of the memo was given to the accused Chandra Bhushan Singh. The accused gave his statement in writing on the spot admitting his guilt in the presence of the witnesses and the officers who in token of their presence signed the same. Also the appellant was interrogated by Sri C.L. Yadav, Intelligence Officer and his interrogation was reduced in writing of Sri Yadav in the presence of witnesses. Accused Chandra Bhushan Singh was thereafter taken into custody and handed over to the Custodian of the office of the N.C.B. on 18.6.1987. The accused Chandra Bhushan Singh was produced before the C.J.M., Varanasi on the same day. On the basis of the statement of the accused Chandra Bhushan Singh, that he was doing the business of sale and purchase of psychotropic substances at the instance of his father Rama Shanker Singh, the officers of the N.C.B. filed a complaint against accused Chandra Bhushan Singh and his father Rama Shanker Singh also alleging that he had permitted business of sale and purchase of Nepali Ganja and opium at his residence without any authority.
(2.) ACCUSED Chandra Bhushan Singh and Rama Shanker Singh pleaded not guilty and alleged false implication on account of enmity. The defence of accused Chandra Bhushan Singh was that one Sub Inspector J.P. Singh who was residing in his neighbouring house and who was the owner of that house had litigations with the accused and at the instance of the above owner J.P. Singh, the officers of the N.C.B. had falsely implicated them in this case. Also the defence of Rama Shanker Singh was that he had been living separately from accused Chandra Bhushan Singh and had nothing to do with illicit trafficking of psychotropic substances if any by him. Charge under Sections 28, 18, 23 and 25 of N.D.P.S. Act was framed against the accused Chandra Bhushan Singh whereas charge under Section 25, N.D.P.S. Act was framed against the accused Rama Shanker Singh. In support of its case the prosecution examined PW -1 is C.L. Yadav, Intelligence Officer of N.C.B., PW -2 C.S. Singh, Intelligence Officer of N.C.B., PW -3 Alok Kumar Intelligence Officer of N.C.B., PW -4 Chandrika Prasad and PW -5 Vimalesh independent witnesses of the alleged recovery and PW -6 K.K. Rai Intelligence Officer of N.C.B. The accused examined Govind Madhaw Mishra, DW -1 and Laxmi Kant D.W. -2 and also filed papers in their defence.
(3.) LEARNED IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record convicted the appellant and awarded the aforesaid sentences. However, co -accused Rama Shanker Singh was acquitted.;