Back
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Radhe Shyam Sharma, J.
Anjani Tiwari and Anr. —Appellants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2008
Decided on : 17.7.2013
For the Appellants:Suresh Verma and Ajey Barik, Advocates.
For the Respondent/State T. Nande, Panel Lawyer.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Sections 42(1) and 42(2) of the Act, 1985 are mandatory in nature and need strict compliance and which ought to be construed complied with strictly.
(2) Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form the basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case.
Headnote:(i) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Section 20(b)(ii)(c) —Recovery of 190 kg of ganja in 19 bags being carried and transported in a car and both appellants were present in the car—Appeal against conviction—Non-joining of any public person as witness—In absence of any animosity between accused and official witnesses, there was nothing wrong in relying in their testimony—Mere three days delay in sending samples to office of chemical examiner would not be fatal—Provisions of Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the Act were substantially compiled with—Conviction called for no interference.
(ii) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Section 42—Accused were apprehended on prior secret information—Information was entered into rojnamacha and transmitted to SDO (P) immediately—Mandatory provision stood complied with Section 42(1) and 42(2). (Paras 10 & 11)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Radhe Shyam Sharma, J.—This appeal is directed against judgment dated 20.11.2007 passed by Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1985’), Bilaspur in Special Case No.9/2007. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellants Anjani Tiwari and Ashok Kumar have been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:
Ashish Vashnik (PW6) was posed as Sub-Inspector in Police Station Ratanpur. On 14.4.2007, he received information that the appellants were bringing Ganja from Orissa and going towards Shahdol through Ratanpur Pendra Road in Santro Car. He recorded mukbir suchana panchnama (Ex.P4) and also entered it in rojnamcha sanha No.596 (Ex.P25). He transmitted the same to SDO(P) Kota vide Ex.P5 and also recorded it in rojnamcha sanha No.598 (Ex.P7). Thereafter, he proceeded for Bhim Chowk, Ratanpur. One Santro Car was coming there towards Bilaspur. He stopped the Santro Car. On being inquired, the appellants told their names as Anjani Tiwari and Ashok Kumar. The appellants were informed about their right under Section 50 of the Act, 1985 vide Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 and their consent were recorded in Ex.P8 and Ex. P9. Thereafter, Sub-inspector Ashish Vashnik (PW6) searched the Santro Car. In the said Santro Car, 19 bags (bora) were found. Identification of the recovered articles was conducted vide Ex.P19. After physical verification, it was found that the recovered articles were Ganja. Ganja was weighed on the spot vide Ex.P21 and it was found that out of 19 bags, (1) one jute bag (bori) had contained 10.00 kg., (2) one jute bag had contained 11.500 kg., (3) one jute bag had contained 6.00 kg., (4) one jute bag had contained 10.00 kg., (5) one jute bag had contained 5.500 kg., (6) one jute bag had contained 9.00 kg. (7) one jute bag had contained 10.00 kg. (8) one jute bag had contained 12.00 kg., (9) one jute bag had contained 11.00 kg., (10) one jute bag had contained 12.00 kg., (11) one jute bag had contained 11.500 kg., (12) one jute bag had contained 11.500 kg., (13) one jute bag had contained 11.500 kg., (14) one jute bag had contained 11.500 kg., (15) one jute bag had contained 12.00 kg., (16) one jute bag had contained 12.00 kg., (17) one jute bag had contained 11.500 kg., (18) one jute bag had contained 5.500 kg. and (19) one jute bag had contained 5.00 kg. of Ganja. Total 190.00 kg. of Ganja were recovered from the Santro Car and a seizure panchnama (Ex.P23) was prepared and 19 samples of the seized Ganja were prepared separately, each sample contained 100 grams of Ganja. Ashish Vashnik (PW6) came back to Police Station Rantanpur alongwith the seized Ganja and the appellants. First Information Report (Ex.P31) was recorded in Police Station Ratanpur. The appellants were arrested vide Ex.P29 to P30. The seized articles were handed over to Malkhana Moharrir for their safe custody.19 samples of seized Ganja were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex.P32. A report (Ex.P33) was received therefrom, in which, test of Ganja was found positive in all the 19 samples.
After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Special Judge under the Act, 1985, Bilaspur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.
3. Shri Suresh Verma and Shri Ajay Barik, learned counsel for their respective appellant argued that there was no compliance of provisions of Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the Act, 1985. They further argued that the secret information was not sent to Superior Officer. They further argued that there is nothing on record to show that the bags (bora/bori) were containing Ganja and the samples taken out from the bags were sealed and specimen of
