Office Notes,

reports, orders

or proceedings

SL. No. Date or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

3. Present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 17.05.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No.142 of 2021 (Old No.160 of 2017) under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Kalsi, District Dehradun. By the said judgment the appellant has been sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1,00,000/-and in default stipulation one year’s additional simple imprisonment was imposed upon him.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.10.2016 at around 11:15 a.m., police team led by S.O. Dilwar Singh Negi alongwith police team was conducting the routine checking near Koti Road after having received the information that a person coming from Tuni was carrying a contraband named charas. The applicant was apprehended and after inspection by police team was found to be carrying 1.500 gram of contraband named charas.

5. The main ground, so advanced by learned counsel for the applicant firstly is that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter; secondly it is stated that no inventory of the said seized contraband was ever made. It is also stated that the directives and mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been followed.

6. There is an anomaly in the entry of the General Diary wherein the FIR number was written before the actual filing of the FIR. It is also stated that in the recovery memo which was prepared on the spot, the FIR number has been mentioned that raised serious doubt about the prosecution story. It is further stated that considering the steps taken by the police team regarding search and seizure, it appears that the arrest was made at the police station and not on the spot and finally it is stated that the mandatory compliance of Section 41, 42, 43, 50, 52, 52A, 55 and 56 of the NDPS Act have not been made and it is evident that the contraband, so alleged to have been recovered from his possession, is planted one.

7. Learned State counsel objects to the present bail application and refutes all the statement, so advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the case is well founded and there are no procedural error whatsoever and the court below after much scrutiny and detailed appreciation of evidence had rightly convicted the accused person and he does not have any ground to be released on bail at this juncture.

8. The contraband named, charas weighing 1.500 gram comes above the commercial quantity . and the same has been verified as charas As per the FSL report it is stated that the anomalies which the learned counsel for the applicant is trying to point out regarding the number of FIR being mentioned prior to lodging of the same in the General Diary and that there being no inventory report as such is not proved. The evidence from record has been placed before this Court that the inventory report has been made and all the proper procedure has been followed.