SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(HP) 136

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,R.L.KHURANA
SANJIV KUMAR ALIAS SANJU - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF H.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2002
Decided On : 07/08/2004

Advocates Appeared:
Rakesh Jaswal (Amicus Curiae) for the Appellant; S.D. Vasudeva, Additional Advocate General with D.S. Nainta, Dy. Advocate General, for the Respondent.

Headnote:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Section 428 - Substantive sentence - Adjustment of period of sentence - Applicant tried and sentenced under Section 18 of N.D.P.S. Act - Held, that the custody of applicant during investigation and trial can be set off and adjusted against the imprisonment awarded to the applicant in default of payment of fine - Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—This is a jail appeal filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused) challenging the judgment/order dated 11-1-2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 4 ot 2001. By the impugned judgment, the accused has been convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Phychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( for short "the Act") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows:— On 1.10.2000 PW-5 Shubdra Tiwari Dy. S.P. who at the relevant time was officiating as S.H.O. Police Station Aut, District Mandi alongwith PW-9 Sub Inspector Om Prakash, PW-1 Head Constable Jagat Singh, PW-2 LHC Narpat Ram PW-9 Sub Inspector Om Prakash and some more police officials were present in village Bashan in connection with Nakabandi. The Police Party at about 5.45 A.M. noticed one parson coming from Thachi side carrying a bag on his left shoulder. On seeing the Police Party the said person tried to run away. He was apprehended on suspicion and on verification of his antecedents he disclosed his name and address. That person is the accused in the present case. He was given option to be searched in presence of the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and when the accused expressed his option to be searched by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, PW-5 conducted search of the bag of the accused and recovered charas in the shape of battinuma therefrom. The photographs Ext.PK/1 and Bxt.PK/2 of the recovered charas were also taken. On weighment, the charas was found 3 Kgs. and 250 grams. Since the accused could not account for the same, the charas was seized in the presence of the other police officials, 50 grams charas were separated from the bulk charas out of which two samples weighing 25 grams each were drawn which were sealed in separate parcels and the balance charas of 3 Kgs. and 200 gms. alongwith bag were sealed by using seal impcesslon ‘T at six places. The seal after use was handed over to PW-1 H.C. Jagat Singh- The accused was supplied grounds of arrest vide Memo Ex. PE. PW-5 prepared Ruka Ext. PG which was sent through PW-2 LHC Narpat Ram to the Police Station, Aut for registration of the case. PW-3 HC Naresh Kumar lodged the FIR Ext. PH in Police Station Aut. PW-5 prepared site plan Ext. PL and filled up NCB form Ext. PM. The sealed packets of charas and seal ‘T alongwith NCB form were handed over to PW-3 by PW-5 for safe custody in Police Malkhana. On 1.10.2000 PW-3 sent one parcel of charas alongwith specimen seal, NCB form and other docket etc. through PW-7 constable Atma Ram to the Laboratory at Kandaghat vide R.C. No. 71/2000. PW-5 recorded the statements of the witnesses and sent Special report Ext PJ through PW-6 constable Gauri Dutt to the Dy. Superintendent of Police Head Quarter, Mandi. PW-9 Sub-Inspector Om Prakash received report Ext. PN from CTL Kandaghat which revealed that the same contained charas. After completion of the investigation PW-9 submitted the chargesheet against the accused who stood his trial.

3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as nine witnesses. The defence plea is one of denial. In answer to question No. 26 of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused pleaded as under:— "On 1.10.2000 at about 2.30 a.m. the police party came to my house and told in the presence of my brother, father and member of Panchayat likam Ram that I and my brother are required by the police for investigation of a theft case and that is why we are being taken to the Police Station. While on our way to the Police Station, Lal Singh tailor master met us at village Kotdhar. On his asking from the police, he was also told that the police is taking us to the Police Station for interrog
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top