Barkat Ali Zaidi - (1.) -
(2.) THE abovenamed appellant-accused was tried in Special Case No. 29 of 1998 and the Special Additional Session Judge, Siddharth Nagar by judgment and order dated 14.8.2001 held him guilty under Section 20B (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and punished him with 10 years rigorous imprisonment plus fine Rs. 1,00,000. In default further six months rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case is that on telephonic information received by P.W. 2 R. N. Rai Superintendent Customs, Barhani on 31.5.1998 at 6.00 a.m. that a Maruti Car bearing No. U. P. 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 P.W. 1 T. H. Ansari for sending it to the higher authorities, with a direction to form a party to accompany him to the border. It is said that a party comprising P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and a few sepoys 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.P. Verma also joined the party. Inspector Irfan Ullah brought two public witnesses P.W. 3 Mohd. Mushte Hasan and Kulu Prasad also at Khanua border, where the party lay in wait for the car in question. It is said that around 8.30 O'clock in the morning a Maruti Car bearing aforenoted 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 P.W. 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 a gazetted officer or a Magistrate but the accused agreed to the search being conducted by P.W. 1 T. H. Ansari. It is said P.W. 1, T. H. Ansari then conducted the search on the person of the accused and only except Indian currency worth Rs. 1,200 was recovered. On the search of the car a packet rapped in a polythene bag being hidden under the plates of the bonnet containing some sticks of Charas and a polythene bag being hidden under another plate inside the engine containing Charas sticks were recovered. The recovered Charas weighed 12 Kg. P.W. 1, T. H. Ansari thereafter collected 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 a 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.
(3.) P.W. 1, T. H. Ansari thereafter filed a complaint under the provisions of Sections 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 because they could not be apprehended in the Court of Special Judge, Siddharth Nagar. The prosecution examined P.W. 1, T. H. Ansari, Inspector Customs, Circle Barhani, P.W. 2, R. N. Rai Superintendent Sonauli, P.W. 3 Mohd. Mustahasan of recovery of the contraband articles from the car. The prosecution examined three witnesses. P.W. 1, T. H. Ansari is the Inspector Customs who was informed about the expected arrival of the accused in a Car and who thereafter formed a 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. P.W. 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 P.W. 1. P.W. 3 Mohd. Mustahasan is a 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.;