Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

1. This Criminal Appeal No.5622 of 2015 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Maharaj Ganj in Special Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2011 (State Vs. Geeta) arising out of Case Crime No. 8896 of 2011, P.S. Sonauli whereby accused appellant has been convicted and awarded punishment under Section 8/23 N.D.P.S. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) of 10 years R.I., fine of Rs. 1,000,00/- and in default of payment of fine, one year additional imprisonment.

2. The other Criminal Appeal 5623 of 2015 has been filed by accused appellant Sangeeta against the same judgment whereby she has been awarded the same punishment under the same sections.

3. The third Criminal Appeal No.5624 of 2015 has been filed by Suneeta Gurung against the same judgment whereby she has also been awarded the same punishment under the same Sections.

4. Since all these three Appeals mentioned above arise out of same judgment and order, they are being taken up together.

5. At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention here that the court below had passed an order dated 31.5.2012 directing all the three S.T.s namely S.T. No. 66 of 2011, S.T. No. 67 of 2011 and S.T. No. 68 of 2011 to be tried consolidatedly because all these had common recovery memo. Thereafter, the evidence was recorded by the court below in leading S.T. No. 66 of 2011 (State Vs. Sangeeta). After the entire evidence was recorded, at the stage of recording of statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., an application No. 84 of 2009 was moved by accused appellant, Sangeeta praying for separating her case and for permitting to adduce evidence in defence. The said application was allowed by the lower court and thereafter she has examined herself as D.W.1 in defence on 27.10.2015. The arguments were heard by the leaned court below on 28.10.2015, 29.10.2015 and thereafter when the arguments were completed on 31.10.2015, the judgment was delivered on 31.10.2015 in this case.

6. Record does not reveal as to whether any separate order was passed by the learned lower court with regard to other S.S.Ts being conducted jointly or separately. However, it is found that the judgment in other two S.S.T.s were also delivered on the same date. The accused Sangeeta had also examined herself in defense as D.W.1 but no reference is found thereof in the order-sheet. The third accused Geeta did not produce any evidence in defense.

7. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:-

8. On 29.9.2011, P.W. 1, S.I. Sri Ram Shabad Verma along with constable Sri Manoj Kumar Singh (P.W.2) received an information by informant when they were busy in performing their law and order duty that from the side of Nepal, some persons with illegal articles were likely to come, if search be made, they could be arrested. Believing this information, S.I., Shri Satte Singh who was performing duty on the Indo-Nepal border gate and S.S.B. (I) Batalion E company were apprised about it, who took along head constable Hukam Singh Constable Pintu Negi, lady constable Jahan Ara Khan, lady constable Beena Devi (P.W.3) and began the search. Right then, three ladies were noticed coming from the side of Nepal with one child each who, after looking these police personnel, took about turn. At this the police party became suspicious and the lady constable directed them to stop. On being enquired, the first lady disclosed her name to be Sangeeta, the second disclosed her name to be Geeta and the third disclosed her name as Suneeta Gurung. All the three accused stated that because they had 'charas' with them, they tried to run away in the opposite direction. After having come to know that all these three ladies had 'charas' with them, they were told that they would be searched in presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate. On this, all of them collectively as well as individually stated that they had revealed the correct facts and in view of