IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.
Nand Kishore Bhagat – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.90 of 2013
Decided on: 02-08-2013
(2009)8 SCC 539; (2000)2 SCC 513; (2001)6 SCC 692-Relied.
Heard Mr. D.K. Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Abha Singh and Mr. Dasrath Mehta, Additional Public Prosecutors for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16th January, 2013 and the order of sentence dated 18th January, 2013 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Rail P.S. Case No.68 of 2007/32 of 2012, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted under section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellant has further been convicted under section 22 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. However, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine the appellant has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years.
3. According to the prosecution case, the officer-in-charge Shashi Bhusan Singh (P.W.4) of Rail Police Station, Muzaffarpur received secret information at 9.15 p.m. on 7th September, 2007 that one person who had got down from Raxaul-Muzaffarpur passenger train at platform no.3 was carrying something suspicious in a carton and was proceeding towards platform no.6. In order to verify the information received, the officer-in-charge of the police station along with Sub Inspector of Police Ramashish Paswan (P.W.5) proceeded towards platform no.6. They located one person carrying a carton on his head and asked him to stop but he threw the carton and ran towards toilet in order to escape. He was chased and caught. He was brought near the place where he had thrown the carton. On enquiry, the person apprehended disclosed his identity as Nand Kishore Bhagat son of Ramchandra Bhagat. He further disclosed that he was carrying twelve kilograms ganja in the carton for the purposes of sale to one Suresh Chaudhary, resident of Kalyan Chowk, Muzaffarpur. The carton, so recovered, was searched in presence of two local independent witnesses Manoj Kumar Singh (P.W.1) and Rakesh Jha (P.W.2). The search resulted in recovery of two packets of ganja kept in a polythene bag and further kept in the carton. The ganja weighed twelve kilograms and was seized by a seizure memo. The two witnesses and the accused appellant put their respective signatures over the seizure memo. Thereafter, the appellant was taken into custody.
4. The officer-in-charge Shashi Bhusan Singh (P.W.4) of Rail Police Station, Muzaffarpur, after seizing ganja and apprehending the accused handed over investigation of the case to the Sub Inspector of Police Ramashish Paswan (P.W.5) at the place of occurrence itself. Thereafter, on the basis of self statement of P.W.4 Rail (Muzaffarpur) P.S. Case No.68 of 2007 was registered at 00.45 a.m. on 8th September, 2007 under sections 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act.
5. On conclusion of investigation, the investigating officer Ramashish Paswan (P.W.5) submitted charge-sheet no.107 of 2007 dated 6th November, 2007. On 20th November, 2007 cognizance of the offence was taken. Thereafter, the court below framed charges for the offences punishable under sections 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act against the appellant on 15th October, 2008. The appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.
6. In course of trial altogether five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of them two seizure memo witnesses Manoj Kumar Singh (P.W.1) and Rakesh Jha (P.W.2), turned hostile in course of trial. They denied to have any knowledge regarding the occurrence. They stated that ganja in question was not recovered in their presence and the police had taken their respective signatures on blank sheet of paper. Their evidence is of no help to the prosecution.
7. P.W.3 Raj Kumar has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. He was also cross-exami
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.