Mansoor, J.— (Oral)

1. In this Criminal Appeal, the appellant, convict, has called in question the judgement and order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Leh, in case titled State v. Imtiyaz Ahmad, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the commission of offences under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short NDPS Act) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 14 years and fine of Rs.1.50 lakhs. In default of payment of fine, the convict has been directed to undergo further rigorous im#31;prisonment Of one year.

2. It becomes necessary to give a resume of the prosecution version of the genesis of the case. Police Station, Leh, received an information through reliable source on 17.05.2010 at 2.30 p.m. that one Imtiyaz Ahmad Tanga, appellant herein, was having in possession some intoxicable article, knowi. as Charas, for purposes of sale. On receipt of this information, it is alleged that SHO Police Station, Leh, telephonically informed the ASP and the Executive Magistrate to visit the spot, which they did and, thereafter, an FIR was registered and investigations com#31;menced. After conducting the investigation, a final report was submitted before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Leh, against the accused. The accused was charge sheeted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge (hereinafter, the trial court) vide order dated 20.09.2010. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried for the Commission of offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act.

3. During the pendency of the trial, the accused was admitted to bail. Out of the twelve witnesses listed in calendar, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses. Prosecution witness No. 2, namely, Sonam Krazing, Numberdar Skalzing was reported to be dead.

4. After evidence of prosecution was closed, the statement of the accused, in terms of Section 342 of Cr. P.C., was recorded and he was asked to enter upon defence. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence, accordingly evidence was closed. On 23.11.2012 the judgement was passed, constrained the appellant to file the appeal in hand and is in the custody even as on today.

5. In order to appreciate the evidence, it would be appropriate to record a brief account thereof herein.

6. The statement of prosecution witness No. 1, namely, Chuwang Murugh, was recorded on 11.04.2011. He has stated that the Police told him that some contraband substance was recovered from the accused and when he reached the spot, he got the contraband substance weighed and Police asked him to affix his signatures on a paper, which he did. He has accepted his signatures which are marked as Exhibit EXPW/3. The seized contraband substance was also produced before him which he identified in the trial court.

In cross examination, he has deposed that, when he reached the spot, the police were opening the goods and he did riot know wherefrom the said goods were brought by the Police; that he has never seen the Charas; that he is illiterate and does not know what was written on the paper; that no number was recorded on the seized articles. He has pleaded ignorance about the Scale. He has also deposed that a girl from Bodhkharbu was sitting in the shop as a Salesgirl.

7. Prosecution witness No. 3, Gurjeet Singh Namgiyal, Naib Tehsildar, Leh has deposed that he received a phone call from SHO Police Station, Leh, that some narcotic substance kept concealed was required to be seized. He sought permission from Tehsildar and went on spot. He asked the police officials as to what proceed#31;ings were to be drawn; that search was conducted and some narcotic substance had been kept concealed in the coverings of Maize Corn Cobs; that out of a total number of forty eight pieces, only four had been kept concealed in the coverings of Maize Corn Cobs and remaining had been kept concealed in coverings of Maize Corn Cobs wrapped in polythene. He has accepted the contents of seizure memo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document