SONU Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Sonu has preferred this appeal against the judgment, dated 15.7.2005, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby he has been convicted of an offence, under Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs. 30,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year.

(2.) A report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed against the appellant, alleging that on 16.2.2003 around 2.00 p.m., when H.C. Palam Singh (PW 7) was present near a place called Chanju Nullah, the appellant appeared with a rucksack (Pithu) on his back and on seeing the police, tried to run away. He was over powered. The conduct of the appellant aroused suspicion of the said Head Constable and the constables, accompanying him. The Head Constable told the appellant that it was suspected that he was carrying some narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and so he intended to search his person. He informed him that he had a right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer of certain Departments and in case he so desired, he could be taken to the nearest Magistrate or some Gazetted Officer of the specified Departments so that search was conducted in the presence of such Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer. The appellant allegedly opted for being searched on the spot. Thereafter the Head Constable got his person searched from the witnesses, namely. PW 1 Jamal Deen and one Tek Chand, who happened to reach the spot. Nothing incriminating was found during the course of the search of the person of the Head Constable. After that, personal search of the appellant was carried out. From his bag a plastic bag containing Charas was recovered, which had been kept under a blanket. On being weighed, Charas was found to be 650 grams, out of which two samples of 20 grams each were separated. The samples and the bulk Charas were sealed in separate parcels. A written report of the matter was prepared and sent to the Police Station for formal registration of the case. Search and seizure memo was prepared. The appellant was arrested and was apprised of the grounds of his arrest, in writing. The case property was deposited with the Station House Officer, who affixed his own seal on the parcels containing the samples and the bulk Charas. One sample parcel was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who reported that the contents of the parcel were of Charas. On completion of the investigation, report was filed against the appellant.

(3.) APPELLANT 's plea is that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. His further contention is that the evidence led by the prosecution is full of contradictions, discrepancies and infirmities, which make the case highly doubtful.