Point of Law: NDPS Act Section 18 provides penalty for certain offences in relation to opium poppy and opium.

JUDGMENT :

SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the A.S.J. court no. 5 Bahraich in S.T. No. 14/2012 arsing out of case crime no. 645 of 2011, under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act, whereby the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant u/s 20 NDPS Act for 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, ten months additional simple imprisonment.

2. Brief fact of the case emerges as such that on 5.12.2011 at 15.00 hours, the informer informed to the police that one Nepali person carrying charas will arrive India via Nepalganj Rupaidiha main highway from Nepal. On receiving this information, Abhinav Kashyap, Assistant Commander made Special Checking Squad comprising SSBL personnel. The special checking squad along with the informant reached the check post which was situated at Nepalganj Rupaidiha highway and started waiting for accused-appellant. At 17.00 hours on pointing out of informer, the suspected accused was intercepted for checking. Even as the accused opened the bag, he started fleeing from the spot. But the special checking squad immediately nabbed him and on asking his name and address and the reason for fleeing, he told that there is charas in his bag and further told his name Ishwar Lal Roka S/o Jam Bahadur Roka, R/o Nagarpalika Police Station Chowki Ghorahi Ward no. 10 District Dang Western Nepal, aged 41 years. On asking the reason for bringing or taking the alleged charas, the accused told that one week ago, at Weston Hospital, Nepalganj one unknown person met him and offered Indian Rs. 15,000/- for delivering a bag containing Charas to Roadways Bus stop Rupaidiha. On spot contraband article was tested by Drug Testing Kit and prima facie, the recovered contraband article was found to be charas, therefore, the accused-appellant was immediately arrested. The accused was given choice to get the recovered article checked by any officer or Magistrate. The appellant however opted his search by the checking squad himself. Accordingly, search was conducted on the spot and consent letter was signed by the accused-appellant. Bag of the accused was searched. It was found that a box containing charas, Indian Rs. 2,500/- and a Samsung Mobile. Then, the information regarding arrest of the accused-appellant was given by the police authority to his wife Lal Kumari. On weighing by the scale available there, the recovered charas was 5 kg and 238 gms. Out of which, 25-25 gms charas was separately sealed for sample and the remaining charas was sealed in another packet. The accused was brought to the police station-Rupaidiha, where the case under section 8/20 of NDPS Act was registered as case crime no. 645 of 2011.

3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant before sessions court, Bahraich. This case was transferred to the Special Judge, court no. 4, Bahraich, where the charge was framed. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty of the charges levelled against him and he contended that he was falsely implicated in this case and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Sonam; PW-2 Abhinav Kashyap, complainant; PW-3 Umesh Kumar Bhardwaj.

5. The trial court on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution held that the prosecution succeeded to prove the charge against the appellant. It was also held that all the procedural technicalities were complied with. Thus, the trial court convicted the appellant for possessing the contraband article Charas weighing 5 kg and 238 gms from his possession and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Court.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the finding given by the trial court is perverse and bad in the eye of law. Ther