- (1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. The above named appellant-accused was tried in Special Case No. 29 of 1998 and the Special Addl. Session Judge, Siddharth Nagar by judgment and order dated 14. 8. 2001 held him guilty under Section 20-B (11) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and punished him with 10 year rigorous imprisonment plus fine Rs. 1, 00, 000/ -. In default further six months rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that on telephonic information received by PW. 2 R. N. Rai Superintendent Customs, Barhani on 31. 5. 1998 at 6. 00 A. M. that Maruti Car bearing No. UP 53a-5353 carrying Charas will pass from Khanua border around 8 o'clock or so in the morning, he reduced the information into writing and handed it over to Inspector RW. 1-T. H. Ansari for sending it to the higher authorities, with direction to form party to accompany him to the bor der. It is said that party comprising RW. 1, RW. 2 and few spays reached the check post at Khanua on India-Nepal border around 8 O'clock in the morning where two more customs inspectors Irfan Ullah and S. R Verma also joined the party. Inspector Irfan Ullah brought two public witnesses RW. 3 Mohd. Mushte Hasan and Kuiu Prasad also at Khanua border, where the party fey in wait for the car in question. It is said that around 8. 30 O'clock in the morning a Maruti Car bearing affronted registration number being driven by the accused arrived at the border and the party led by P. W. 2 approached the car where on the instructions of P. W. 2, T. H. Ansari RW. 1 told the accused that they wanted to search his person and the car and if he so wants the search will be taken before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate but the accused agreed to the search being conducted by P. W. 1-T. H. Ansari. It is said RW. 1 -T. H. Ansari then conducted the search on the person of the accused and only Indian currency worth Rs. 1200/- was recovered. On the search of the car a packet rapped in polythene bag being hidden under the plates of the bonnet containing some sticks of Charas and polythene bag being hidden under another plate inside the engine containing Charas sticks were re covered. The recovered Charas weighed 12 Kg. RW. 1-T. H. Ansari thereafter col lected sample of Charas from each of the packets recovered and divided the samples in four parts and sealed these samples and the recovered Charas by preparing Fard (Ext. Ka-1) in presence of witnesses. The samples collected out of the recovered articles were sent to Chemical Examiner and the Chemical Examiner confirmed that the samples contained Charas by his report dated 7. 7. 1998 which is on record, Pw. 1-T. H. Ansari thereafter filed complaint under the provisions of Sec tions 20b (II) and 23 N. D. P. S. Act against the accused-appellant and two other persons Chandrika Prasad Patwa and Hardeep Singh alias Lukki Singh out of whom, according to the accused-appellant one was the sender of the Charas and the other was the person to whom the Charas was to be delivered. These two other named Chandrika Prasad Patwa and Hardeep Singh did not face trial be cause they could not be apprehended, in the court of Special Judge, Siddharth Nagar.
(3.) THE prosecution examined PW. 1-T. H, Ansari, Inspector Customs, Circle Barhani, RW. 2-R. N. Rai Superintendent Sonauli, RW. 3-Mohd. Mustahasan of recovery of the contraband articles from the car. THE prosecution examined three witnesses. PW. T. H. Ansari is the Inspector Customs who was informed about the expected arrival of the accused in a Car and who thereafter formed party and came over the spot and took the search of the accused and the car after he was apprehended and recovered the contraband material as noted above. PW. 2 R. N. Rai is the Custom Superintendent who received information about the arrival of ' " the contraband Charas from the informer and who witnessed the search of the accused and Car by RW. 1. PW. 3 Mohd. Mustahasan is public witness who was called to witness the search and recovery from the accused and that of his car and who has testified to the same. THE case of the appellant was of plain-denial. THE Session Judge found the evidence of the prosecution dependable and convicted the accused as noted above. The accused has therefore come in appeal.;