AJOY SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1998-2-44
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 13,1998

Ajoy Srivastava Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

DIBYENDU BHUSAN DUTTA, J. - (1.) THE present two appeals arise out of the conviction and sentence passed on 2.6.92 in S.T. XLIV (7) 91 by the Id. Additional Sessions Judge, Fourth Court, Howrah.
(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.6.88, PW 11 Harisadhan Bhattacharjee, O.C., Narcotic Cell of CID, West Bengal along with PW 6 L.N. Hawladar, Assistant sub -Inspector of Police, Narcotic Cell, CID, West Bengal came to the office of DDI, Howrah and sought their assistance to work out a secret information. Accordingly, PW 3 Matilal Chackraborty, Inspector of Police, DDI, Howrah along with PW 4 B.D. Banerjee, another Inspector of Police attached to DDI, Howrah, PW 8 R. Pal, Sub -Inspector of Police attached to Howrah DDI and watcher constable joined them in conducting a raid in a narrow lane near the premises No. 333 N.S. Road near Kalibabur Bazar within P.S. Howrah at about 5 P.M. On being pointed out by the source, four persons namely Ajoy Srivastava, Sankar Mai, Mangal Bhuia and Suresh Sarkar who were found selling heroin were apprehended from that lane. A number of puriahs each containing 50 mgs. of heroin and some cash were recovered from the possession of each of them. In all 70 puriahs and a total sum of Rs. 1030/ - were recovered from their possession. The puriahs were kept inside empty match boxes. The number of puriahs recovered from the aforementioned four persons were 35, 10, 14 and 11 respectively, while the amounts of cash recovered from them were Rs. 910/ -, 35/ -, 40/ - and 45/ - respectively. So far as Ajoy Srivastava is concerned, the match boxes containing puriahs of heroin and the cash were recovered from inside an aluminium box which he was holding on the left hand. The other three persons were holding the match boxes of heroin and cash on their respective left hands. PW 8 seized all the 70 puriahs containing heroin, match boxes, cash and the aluminium box recovered from them under a seizure list (Ext. 1) in presence of two public witnesses namely PWs 1 and 5. The said puriahs were duly sealed and labelled in four envelopes as per the recoveries made from the four persons. Along with the seized alamats and the appellants, PW 8 went to Howrah P.S., produced them before the officer -in - charge and lodged a complaint (Ext. 4) which was treated as FIR (Ext. 5) on the basis of which Howrah P.S, Case No. 13 dated 14.6.88 was started under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. PW 12 took charge of the investigation of this case on 22.6.88. He visited the place of occurrence and prepared a sketch map (Ext. 6). He collected the samples of the seized heroin on 30.7.88 and after re -sealing the samples under a bigger cover, sent it to expert for chemical analysis under the challan (Ext. 7). The chemical analyst found the samples to contain heroin ranging from 82 -92% approximately and gave his opinion in his report (Ext. 8). The remaining seized alamats were as usual kept in the malkhana of Howrah P.S. The seized cash was deposited with the Treasury as per order of the Court. After completion of the investigation, charge -sheet was submitted by PW 12 against the said four persons.
(3.) THE accused were tried on a charge under Section 21 of the NDPS Act for their alleged illicit possession of heroin for sale in violation of Section 8 of the Act. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses during the trial. PW 1 is the superior officer to whom the information of arrest and seizure is said to have been given as contemplated under Section 57 of the NDPS Act and PW 12 is the I.O. Three witnesses viz. PWs 7, 9 and 10 were simply tendered by the prosecution for cross -examination without being examined in chief and one witness viz. PW 11 did not give any evidence except to say that he was the then O.C., Narcotic Cell. Of the remaining six witnesses, PWs 3, 4, 6 and 8 are the police personnel who were members of the raiding party and PWs 2 and 5 are the two public witnesses of search, recovery and seizure. Of the two public witnesses, PW 5 was declared hostile by the prosecution and he claimed to have put his LTI in the seizure list when it was blank.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.