Basudeva Panigrahi, J. - (1.) Conviction and sentence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act passed by Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Barasat, 24-Parganas (North), whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees One Lakh I.D. to further rigorous imprisonment of one year has been assailed in this appeal.
(2.) The scenario of the prosecution story as revealed in course of trial is as follows:- That on 14.9.1997 at about 21.40 hours when A.S.I. M. Rahaman was on duty, he received an anonymous telephonic information that the appellant was selling heroin at the crossing of B. T. Road and Bonhooghly under P. S. Baranagar. Pursuant to the said information, the Duty Officer entered such fact in the G. D. being Entry No. 797 and de facto-complainant C. R. Dirghangi, S. I. informed the matter to the I.C. Baranagar, P. S. The Duty Officer also sent a requisition to the S. D. O. Barrackpore to depute one Executive Magistrate to conduct search in his presence to the appellant. Thereafter, de facto-complainant along with other Officers and force of the P. S. following such information proceeded to the place of incident and they, however, detained the appellant. Meanwhile the Baranagar Officer-in-Charge appeared and he searched the person of the accused in presence of the S. D. P. O., Belghoria and other Officers and also in presence of independent witnesses. On search the reading party had recovered 12 packets of heroin in a sylophene paper inside a matchbox of the appellant and they, accordingly, seized the heroin and prepared seizure lists in presence of the appellant, the witnesses and also the raiding party. The seized articles had been weighed and it was duly levelled and sealed. On weighment it was noticed that it contained 1.600 Milligrams. The appellant was, thereafter, arrested. On 15.9.1997, the appellant along with material objects had been produced before the learned Additional District Judge for sending it to the scientific expert for opinion. After getting the reply from the drug annalist charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.
(3.) In order to substantiate the charge of the prosecution case, 10 witnesses were examined. The learned trial Judge was, however, inclined to record that the prosecution was able to bring home the charge to the accused and, accordingly, convicted him under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act.;