SUBHASH CHANDRA JANA Vs. AJIBAR MIRDHA

LAWS(CAL)-2010-6-5

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

Decided on June 18,2010

SUBHAS CHANDRA JANA Appellant

VERSUS

AJIBAR MIRDHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) FACTS OF THE CASE: Based on an information, the officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau (hereinafter referred to as N.C.B.) raided the house of Ajibar Mirdha at Hatatganju Bazar under the police station Swarupnagar in the district of 24- Parrganas. The raiding party including a lady officer of the N.C.B. as required under provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as N.D.P.S. Act) knocked the door of the house of Ajibar. Seeing them, Ajibar tried to flee away from the place. The officers caught him. He was carrying a foam hand bag in his hand. He confessed that the bag contained heroin. The officers searched the bag in his presence wherefrom a polythene packet containing brown powdered substance was found. A small quantity of the substance was tested by the officers when it responded positive to the test of heroin. Ajibar confessed his guilt, however, prayed for mercy on the ground that he was trafficking it to maintain his livelihood. The substance was weighed and found to be weighing 315 grams. The bag was seized along with the polythene packet under Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The seizure was made in presence of Ajibar as well as two independent witnesses namely Sintu Mondal and Muzibar Rahaman belonging to the same locality. The officers drew two samples of 5 grams each and sealed the samples in two different packets, one was sent for chemical examination and other was kept along with another sealed packet containing the remaining substance. Proceeding was drawn under Section 21 under the N.D.P.S. Act against Ajibar after arresting him under Section 42 at about 7.30 p.m. on the same day. Ajibar was produced on the next day before the Learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate and was remanded to jail custody. PW-1, being an officer of the N.C.B. filed a written complaint in the Court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge (Special Court), Barasat. The learned Additional District Judge framed the charges against Ajibar under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Azibar pleaded not guilty and faced trial.
(2.) PROSECUTION EVIDENCE: PW-1 (Monotosh Sarkar): The witness filed the complaint on behalf of the N.C.B. under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act. He was however not a member of the raiding party. PW-2 (Nemai Chandra Patra): The witness was the Superintendent (Eastern Zone). He led the raiding party. The raiding party called two local witnesses. They raided the house. Ajibar attempted to flee away along with a foam hand bag in his hand. When challenged by the team the accused voluntarily disclosed heroin as a content of the said bag. The witnesses narrated the incident in detail as briefly stated hereinbefore. PW-3 (A.K. Bandapadhyay): This witness was the Chemical Examiner belonging to Customs Department. He tested the sample. The packet contained 5.6 grams substance. 1 gram was consumed for chemical examination, the test was positive. PW-4 (Biswajit Roy) ;- Being a member of the raiding party, this witness observed the incident from a distance. In cross-examination he could not give detailed description of the house belonging to the accused. He merely helped PW-5 for obtaining signature of the accused and witnesses on the sample packets. PW-5 (Gouri Shankar Mukherjee): He was an active member of the raiding party. He knocked the house of the accused, called him by his name. When the accused was trying to flee away the team detained him when he handed over the bag to the witness and confessed that the bag was containing heroin. He gave details of the incident which found corroboration from PW-2.
(3.) DEFENCE EVIDENCE: The accused did not adduce any evidence. He was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In reply to the queries, he claimed to be innocent and denied each and every allegation made against him. With regard to the confessional statement, the accused complained that he was beaten up and was compelled to write the confessional statement.;

Click here to view full judgement.