Dismissed

Mina Pun v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2018JAPL/6522/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a joint jail appeal by Mina Pun and Indra Bahadur Pun against conviction and sentence for smuggling 'Charas' under the N.D.P.S. Act. The single judge dismissed the appeals, holding that the warrant of arrest/search under Section 50 was compliant via consent, the seized quantity exceeded commercial limits, and mere carrier status was not established.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed; appellants ordered to serve remaining sentence.

Mina Pun Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

RESERVED
A.F.R.

¶3

Case :- JAIL APPEAL No. - 6522 of 2017
Appellant :- Mina Pun
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- From Jail,Mansoor Ahmad A C
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.

¶4

Connected with

¶5

Case :- JAIL APPEAL No. - 5215 of 2017
Appellant :- Indra Bahadur Pun
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- From Jail
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶7

The aforesaid both appeals have been preferred
by the appellants - Mina Magar (Pun) and Indra
Bahadur Pun against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 30.5.2017 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-I, Siddharth
Nagar, in Special Criminal Case No.10 of 2013
(State Vs. Indra Bahadur Pun), arising out of Case
Crime No.229 of 2013 and Special Criminal Case
No.11 of 2013 [State Vs. Mina Magar (Pun) ] under
Section 20(B)(ii)(c) of N.D.P.S. Act, Police
Station-Dhebrua, District Siddharthnagar, whereby
appellants-Indra Bahadur Pun and Mina Magar (Pun)
were sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment
coupled with fine rupees one lakh each with default
stipulation to suffer additional two years
imprisonment.

¶8

Since both the appeals arise out of one and the
same judgment, therefore, the same are being

¶9

¶10

decided by a common judgment.

¶11

Heard Sri Mansoor Ahmad, learned amicus curiae
for the appellant Mina Magar (Pun), Smt. Rashmi
Srivastava, learned amicus curiae for the appellant
Indra Bahadur Pun, Sri Om Narain Tripathi assisted
by Subhash Chandra-learned A.G.A.s' for the State
and perused the record.

¶12

Factual position of this case is that on
13.02.2013 at about 12:10 p.m. at Gate No.2
adjoining to the Indo-Nepal border within Police
Station Dhebrua, District Siddharthnagar, after a
tip off the information through an informer that
one man and a lady are expected to arrive from
Nepal side to India possessing illicit contraband
Charas, S.I. Sanjay Singh, Incharge Police outpost
Badhni,PoliceStationDhebrua,District
Siddharthnagar along with his companion Neeraj
Kumar Pandey and Chandrakesh Rai were standing on
tri-crossing of Malkhana, at that point of time,
when S.I. Sanjay Singh along with police personnel
proceeded to the spot near Indo-Nepal border at
Gate No.2 then met with the patrolling party headed
S.I. Triloki Nath and Constable Rajendra Singh,
Constable Darshan Singh Negi, Constable Manoj
Kumar, Constable Omveer Singh, Constable Durgesh
Kumar, Constable Baljeet Digiya and two lady
Constables Reeta Rani and Anupma Yadav. They were
apprised of tip off information, therefore, all
formed one group and proceeded towards Gate No.2
and started checking persons and their goods. After
sometime, one man and a lady coming on their feet

¶13

¶14

were sighted at Gate No.2, who were proceeding
towards Badhni bus stand. They were apprehended by
the police party after the informer pointed towards
them and separated himself from the police party.

¶15

On being asked, they spelt their name as Indra
Bahadur Pun and Mina Magar (Pun), both residents of
Police Station and District Dang, State of Nepal.
Both the apprehended man and lady told that they
are possessing Charas. They were asked by the
police party whether they would like to be searched
before a Magistrate or a Gazette Officer whereupon
they declined the offer and reposed faith in the
police party and agreed to be searched by them.

¶16

Consequent thereupon, the consenting letter was
prepared on the spot and the search of the
appellant Indra Bahadur Pun was made by male police
personnel, whereas, the search of Mina Magar (Pun)
was done by Constable Anupma Yadav. The search was
carried out after the police personnel inter-se
made search of each other and nothing objectionable
found from their possession. 14 polythene packets
were recovered from possession of the appellant
Indra Bahadur Pun and 12 polythene packets were
recovered from possession of the appellant Mina
Magar (Pun). They were asked to show the authority
for keeping contraband Charas with them whereupon
they could not show any authority to keep the same.

¶17

They begged pardon whereupon they were taken
into custody after informing about their act to be
violative of the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. The
substance 5 gram from each packets recovered from

¶18

¶19

both the appellants was separately taken out and
kept separately and rest of the recovered substance
from both the appellants was sealed on the spot.

¶20

The electronic weighing equipment was arranged
and the entire substance was weighed whereupon the
contraband recovered from possession of the
appellant Indra Bahadur Pun weighed 5.320 kg.,
whereas, the contraband recovered from possession
of the appellant Mina Magar (Pun) weighed 6.90kg. A
memo was prepared on the spot and the same was
readover to the appellants and the police
personnel. The public was also present on the spot
but no one was interested in becoming witness to
fact of arrest and recovery, therefore, memo was
signed by the police personnel and the both the
appellants and a copy of the same was given
separately to each of the appellant and the
appellants were taken along with the recovered
substance to the Police Station Dhebrua where the
first information report was lodged by Sanjay
Singh, the informant on 13.02.2013 at 12:10 p.m. at
Case Crime Nos.229 and 230 of 2013 under Sections
8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Dhebrua, District
Siddharthnagar.

¶21

The relevant entries were made in the concerned
general diary and the case was registered against
the appellants. The case was investigated into by
the Investigating Officer wherein the statement of
the prosecution witnesses were recorded by the
Investigating Officer. The samples collected on the
spot and kept in the Malkhana were sent for

¶22

¶23

examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The
site plan of the place of arrest and recovery was
also prepared during investigation, which is Ext.
Ka-6. The Investigating Officer after completing
the investigation filed charge sheet separately
against the appellants under Sections 8/20 N.D.P.S.
Act,PoliceStationDhebrua,District
Siddharthnagar.

¶24

Consequently thereupon, both the appellants
were heard on the point of charge which was made
under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) N.D.P.S. Act. Charges
were denied by the appellants and they opted for
trial.

¶25

The prosecution in all examined as many as
seven witnesses; namely Chandrakesh Rai PW-1 is
witness of fact. Dayaram Yadav PW-2 made relevant
entries in the concerned Check FIR and general
diary and has proved the same as Ext. Ka-4 and Ext.
Ka-5, respectively. Triloki Nath PW-3 is also
witness of fact of arrest and recovery. Sanjay
Singh PW-4 is the informant. Ramashish Singh Yadav
PW-5 is the Investigating Officer, he has conducted
the investigation and filed charge sheet against
the appellants. Indrabhol Yadav PW-6 has taken
sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory after
obtaining the order from the Sessions Judge,
Siddharthnagar. Vavanjeet Gautam PW-7 has proved
Malkhana register and safe keeping of the samples
noted in the Malkhana register and has also proved
relevant entry Ext. Ka-11.

¶26

Thereafter, evidence for the prosecution was

¶27

¶28

closed and statement of the accused was recorded
u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, nothing specific was
stated except fact that they have been falsely
implicated in this case and claimed innocence.

¶29

No evidence, whatsoever, was led in defence.

¶30

The learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-I,
Siddharthnagar, after appraisal of facts and merit
of the case and the evidence on record, returned
aforesaid finding of conviction under Sections 20
(b)(ii)(C) N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced the
appellants to undergo ten years rigorous
imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.1,00,000/- each,
in default of payment of aforesaid fine, they will
have to undergo additional two years rigorous
imprisonment which paved way to this appeal.

¶31

It has been urged by learned amicus curiae for
the appellants that in this case, bare perusal of
recovery and arresting memo and testimony on record
would lead to draw convenient inference that the
mandatory provisions of Section-50 the N.D.P.S. Act
have not been complied with in letter and spirit
thus giving vent tocertain inherent and apparent
shortcomings eventually rendering the conviction
and the sentence imposed upon the appellants
erroneous and illegal, as non-compliance of
Section-50 would vitiate the entire trial. The
contention proceeded and the Court was impressed
upon fact that the language contained in the
arresting memo-Exhibit Ka-3 appears to be
threatening one, as such there is absolutely denial

¶32

¶33

of fair search being carried out in the presence of
a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, thus the entire
search is in violation of provisions contained
under Section-50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶34

Further added that the investigation of the
case is faulty and helpful to the police personnel
involved in the alleged recovery. It is apparent on
record and particularly, in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses that the fact of arrest and
seizure was not informed to the higher authorities
and no such mention is contained in the recovery
memo. Further claimed that the sentence imposed
upon the appellant is disproportionate and too
harsh. The entire quantity of contraband recovered
was mixed with other introductory substance, which
cannot be treated to be actual contraband. That way
to rate the quantity of recovered contraband to be
commercial quantity of 'Charas' is absolutely
arbitrary inference, not supported by the chemical
examination done by the Forensic Science
Laboratory, Lucknow.

¶35

Further claimed that the sentence imposed
should be proportionate to the quantity of actual
contraband recovered from the possession of the
appellants and it should not be awarded for the
whole substance which is mixed with other
extraneous substance. There is nothing on record to
certify about the actual quantity of contraband
allegedly recovered from each of the appellants.

¶36

In support of their claim, both the learned
amicus curiae have relied upon on the decision in

¶37

¶38

the case of Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2017
Law Suit (SC) 589, Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja Vs.
State of Gujarat 2010 LawSuit (SC) 768 and E
Micheal Raj vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic
Control Bureau 2008 LawSuit (SC) 243.

¶39

Sri Om Narain Tripathi, learned A.G.A.
submitted in reply to aforesaid contention that
there is absolute compliance of the mandatory
provisions contained under Section-50 of N.D.P.S.
Act. The recovery memo itself indicates that the
accused at the time when they were apprehended,
were informed by the police party of their right
to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted
Officer and the consenting letters were also
prepared on the spot and the police party consisted
of one S.S.B. Team involved in the process of
arrest and search. The quantity of contraband
recovered from both the appellants, if measured
from any angle or corner would exceed the quantity
prescribed as commercial quantity of 'Charas'. From
the sample collected, 57.5 grams of substance was
describe as 'charas'. Similarly, 69 grams substance
was described 'charas' and this was the entire
quantity of the two samples collected on the spot
from the recovered contraband. Therefore, the
conviction and the sentence awarded cannot be said
to be harsh or disproportionate under facts and
circumstances of the case. All the relevant facts
as were required to be proved have been duly proved
by the prosecution witnesses.

¶40

¶41

Also considered the rival submissions in the
light of the submission so raised and the claim
made by way of aforesaid appeals.

¶42

The relevant point that arises for adjudication
of both the above noted appeals relate to fact
whether the prosecution has been able to prove its
charge beyond reasonable doubt against both the
appellants?

¶43

Bare perusal of the recovery memo-Exhibit Ka-3-
which is the very foundation of this case-is
reflective of fact as to how the things shaped and
developed in the commission of the offence under
the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. The incident of
recovery of contraband 'Charas' allegedly took
place on 13.2.2013 when S.I. Sanjay Singh, Incharge
Police Outpost Badhni, along with Cobra Mobile Team
comprising Constable Neeraj Kumar Pandey, Constable
Chandrakesh Rai received a tip-off information on
the tricrossing of 'maalgodam' through an informer
that one man and one woman, who belonged to Nepal
are coming over to India possessing contraband
'Charas'. If no time is wasted, they can be caught.
Acting on this information, S.I. Sanjay Singh along
with two constables proceeded to the spot and on
way met with S.S.B. patrolling party headed by S.I.
Triloki Nath along with Constable Rajendra Singh,
Constable Darshan Singh Negi, Constable Manoj
Kumar, Constable Om Veer Singh, Constable Durgesh
Kumar, Constable Baljeet Digiya and lady constables
Reeta Rani and Anupma Yadav.

¶44

All the aforesaid police personnel forming a

¶45

¶46

police party arrived at Gate No.2 and started
checking the persons coming from Nepal side. After
a short-while, one man and one woman were sighted
coming on their feet from Nepal side through Gate
No.2 and were proceeding towards Bus Stand Badhni,
when the informer pointed out towards them as the
persons possessing contraband 'Charas'. The
aforesaid police team apprehended both the
appellants-who tried to escape from the scene. On
enquiry being made, they spelt their name as Indra
Bahadur Pun s/o Ramlal Pun Magar, resident of Damar
Gaon Govisa, Ward No.7, Police Station and
District-Dang, Nepal. The lady who was apprehended
by the aforesaid lady constables spelt her name
Mina Magar (Pun) daughter of Rash Bahadur Magar,
resident of Damar Gaon Kursi Kali, Ward No.10,
Police Station and District-Dang, Nepal. Both the
persons were asked for their search and they were
offered option by the police party whether they
would like to be searched before a Magistrate or a
Gazetted Officer, whereupon, they reposed faith in
the police party itself for being searched. Prior
to it, they also told the police party that they
are possessing 'Charas'. Thereafter, the police
party interse carried out search of each other
before carrying out the search and the consenting
letters of both the appellants were also prepared
on the spot. On search of the appellant Indra
Bahadur Pun was found carrying 14 packets of
contraband recovered from his waist and thigh and
the lady constable Anupma Yadav carried out search

¶47

¶48

of the appellant Mina Magar (Pun), whereupon, 12
packets of contraband 'charas' was recovered from
her possession. All the recovered material was kept
in polythene packets.

¶49

Both the appellants were asked about the
authority to keep the same but they could not show
any authority. Therefore, their act was found to
be in violation of Section-8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act.
Both the appellants were arrested at 12.10 p.m. and
the recovered material was sealed on the spot and
the appellants were taken into custody by the
police party and sampling from all the 14 packets
recovered from the possession of the appellant
Indra Bahadur Pun was prepared on the spot,
similarly the sample from 12 packets-recovered from
possession of the appellant Mina Magar (Pun) - was
also prepared on the spot. Electronic weighing
equipment was arranged on the spot, all the
recovered contraband substance was kept in separate
packets and 2 packets of sample separately taken
out from the recovered substance/charas were
weighed and sealed on the spot. The recovery memo
was prepared on the spot. The total weight found
was 5.320 kgs and 6.90 kgs, respectively from each
of the appellants.It was read over in presence of
all the police personnel and the appellants and
after obtaining thumb impression of both the
appellants, a copy whereof was given to each of the
appellants and the information regarding the same
was given in accordance with the directions of Apex

¶50

¶51

Court and The Human Rights Commission. A number
of persons had gathered on the spot during the
process of recovery, but no one was ready to stand
witness to the fact of recovery.

¶52

On the basis of recovery memo, a case was
lodged at Case Crime Nos.229 of 2013 and 230 of
2013, on 13.02.2013 at 2:55 p.m. against both the
appellants Indra Bahadur Pun and Mina Magar (Pun),
under Sections-8/20 N.D.P.S. Act and case was
registered against the appellants by making
relevant entry in the concerned General Diary of
the above date and time.

¶53

In the backdrop of aforesaid accusation, the
testimony has come forth by the prosecution
witnesses particularly PW-1 – Chandrakesh Rai who
has described the entire process as to how the
information was given by the informer when he along
with Constable Neeraj Kumar Pandey was present at
the tricrossing of 'maalgodam' that a man and a
woman from Nepal side are about to cross border of
India. When all the three police personnel
proceeded towards the spot, they met with S.S.B.
Team comprising several persons headed by S.I.
Triloki Nath.

¶54

He has categorically stated that after
apprehending both the appellants, they were asked
about their names whereupon they spelt their name
on the spot and told that they are possessing
'charas'. His testimony goes on to add that they
were offered option to be searched either before a
Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, whereupon they

¶55

¶56

reposed faith in the police party itself for being
searched, thereafter, search was duly carried out
on the spot, after preparing the consenting letters
Exhibit Ka-1 and Exhibit Ka-2, respectively.

¶57

Upon the search being made, 14 packets of
contraband 'charas' was recovered from the
possession of Indra Bahadur Pun and 12 packets of
contraband were recovered from the possession of
Mina Magar (Pun). Both the appellants could not
show any authority to keep the contraband Charas.
Approximately, 5 grams of substance/Charas was
taken out from each packet recovered from both the
appellants and sampling whereof was separately
done. The recovered contraband 'Charas' was sealed
on the spot in separate packets. It has been
testified that though the public was present on the
spot but no one was ready to become a witness to
the fact of recovery. It has also been testified
that the information of arrest and seizure was
given to the higher authorities of the district
through R.T. Set from the police station.

¶58

Similar is the testimony of other witness of
fact. Triloki Nath, who headed the S.S.B. Team in
company with S.I. Sanjay Singh and effected
recovery of contraband substance on 13.2.2013, has
been strenuously cross examined, wherein, he has
stated consistently about the various factual
aspects and quantity of the contraband recovered
from the possession of the appellants. He has
testified in his examination in chief that 14
packets of contraband 'Charas' was recovered from

¶59

¶60

the possession of Indra Bahadur Pun, which on
weighingtotalled5kg.320gms.Similarly,
contraband was recovered in 12 packets from the
possession of accused Meena Magar (Pun), when
weighed it aggregated to 6kg. 90gms. There is
nothing in his testimony, particularly in cross-
examination which may indicate of any improvement
or deliberation.

¶61

In his cross-examination, PW-3 has elaborated
that the search was carried out only after the
consenting letters were prepared on the spot and
interse search of each other by the police
personnel had been done and ensured prior to the
carrying out search of both the appellants.

¶62

Similar is the testimony of the informant
Sanjay Singh PW-4. He has substantiated the
testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 and no deviation
substantial in nature is discernible. His testimony
establishes factum of recovery and seizure of
contraband 'charas' from the possession of both the
accused on 13.2.2013 at 12:10 p.m.

¶63

Insofar as contention pertaining to non
compliance of provisions of Section-50 of the
N.D.P.S. Act are concerned, it is very much
gathered from perusal of the recovery memo-Exhibit
Ka-3 that the mandatory provisions were very much
gone into, which search was carried out in respect
of both the accused. After the appellants were
apprehended by the police party, they were given
option whether they would like to be searched
before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.

¶64

¶65

Thereafter, upon declining the said offer, the
consenting letters were prepared by the police
party very much on the spot as Exhibit Ka-1 and
Exhibit Ka-2. Interse search was also made by the
police party of itself prior to search and recovery
and contraband was seized from the possession of
the appellants.

¶66

In this view of the matter, the mandatory
compliance of Section-50 has been substantially
carried out. Even testimony of the prosecution
witnesses, particularly PW-1 Chandrakesh Rai, PW-3
Triloki Nath and PW-4 Sanjay Singh, is overwhelming
on the point that the mandatory compliance was done
as required under Section-50 of N.D.P.S. Act and
the information of arrest was given on R.T. Set the
very same day to the higher police authorities.
That way, contention raised by the appellants to
the above extent that information to higher
authorities was not given, does not carry any
force.

¶67

In so far as, contention raised regarding the
actual quantity of the contraband recovered from
possession of the appellants is concerned, that
way, thrust has been made on the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of E Micheal Raj vs.
Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau 2008
LawSuit (SC) 243. In this case, it was held that
whatever percentage of contraband/substance is
found should be the actual consideration for the
court while convicting the accused and awarding

¶68

¶69

sentence on him.

¶70

That way, it is noticeable that the Forensic
Science Laboratory Report dated 10.4.2013 Exhibit
Ka-8 is indicative of fact that the quantity of
'charas' found in both the samples contained 57.5
grams and 69 grams of 'charas'. 5 grams of
substance from each packet recovered from the
appellants Indra Bahadur Pun and Mina Magar (Pun),
respectively was collected and sampling was done by
PW-4-the informant-Sanjay Singh. Obviously, both
the samples contained 'charas' upto that magnitude
(57.5 gms. and 69 gms.) which conforms to fact that
the quantity of 'charas' recovered from each of the
accused exceeded quantity 1 kg. The commercial
quantity of 'charas' is fixed at 1 kilogram. Then
the recovered quantity from both the appellants
will obviously exceed 1 kilogram of 'charas'
because 5.320 kilograms 'charas' was recovered from
the possession of Indra Bahadur Pun, whereas, 6.90
kilograms of contraband 'charas' was recovered from
the possession of Mina Magar (Pun).

¶71

Insofar as the contention concerning offer to
be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted
Officer is concerned specific contention has been
raised that it was by way of threatening. But it is
not borne out either by evidence or attendant
circumstances of the case. Therefore, the argument
does not come to the rescue of the appellants.
There is nothing on record which may give
indication that the offer of search being made was
not a request but a threatening gesture on the part

¶72

¶73

of the police party.

¶74

Further, the 'maalkhana' register was duly
proved by Vavanjeet Gautam PW-7, who has proved the
relevant 'maalkhana' register and its entry on
Serial No.20 pertaining to Case Crime No. 229 of
2013 and Serial No.22 pertaining to Case Crime
No.230 of 2013 and this page of the 'maalkhana'
register has been proved as Exhibit Ka-11.

¶75

This aspect is further strengthened by the
testimony of Indrabhol Yadav PW-6, who took these
samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, has
proved safe conveyance and custody of the aforesaid
samples at aforesaid serial numbers to the effect
that the same were kept intact and handed over at
Vidhi Vigyan Proyagshala, Lucknow at Lot Nos. 2007
and 2004 on 12.3.2013 and 13.3.2013, respectively.
He has also proved fact that samples were taken
after obtaining order from the concerned Session
Judge. The cross examination of this witness and
the other prosecution witnesses does not elicit
anything abnormal or adverse, which may cast any
doubt on their testimony. Testimony of all the
prosecution witnesses is consistent and conforming
to each other. Contradictions are trivial in
nature.

¶76

Contention has been raised that both the
appellants were carriers and they cannot be treated
to be the persons directly involved in smuggling
and sale of contraband substance, therefore, this
aspect should be duly considered and sentence
imposed on the appellants should be reduced in the

¶77

¶78

proportion of their offence.

¶79

This contention does not extend protection
cover of carrier to the accused because the
Investigating Officer has merely expressed his
opinion about some overhearing that the accused
were carriers of the contraband substance, however,
in the absence of some other person for whom or on
whose instance the accused were carrying contraband
'Charas' has not been brought forth on record.
Therefore, mere statement of the Investigating
Officer PW-5 that, too, appears to be an isolated
statement and cannot be acted upon in the absence
of corroborative support from facts, circumstances
and evidence to that extent on record.

¶80

Insofar the aforesaid citations relied upon by
the learned amicus curiae for the appellants are
concerned, the same are not applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the present case and are of no
help to the appellants.

¶81

Aforesaid citation concerningVijaysingh
Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat 2010 LawSuit
(SC) 768 relates to compliance to mandate of
provisions contained under Section 50 of the
N.D.P.S. Act. Here in this case at hand it has been
established that substantive compliance of Section
50 N.D.P.S. Act has been made.

¶82

In the case of E Micheal Raj vs. Intelligence
Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau 2008 LawSuit (SC)
243 that rationale laid down relates to actual
percentage of contraband recovered from the entire

¶83

¶84

substance. This point is not involved in this case
at hand, for the reason that almost entire
recovered substance was found 'charas'.

¶85

 The aforesaid citation concerningMohinder
Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2017 Law Suit (SC) 589
pertains to conviction order passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court after High Court of Punjab & Haryana
acquitted the accused, who was found inside the
truck owned by him. Facts are totally different in
this case at hand and don't help the appellants.

¶86

After scrutinizing the entire evidence on
record and after considering the submission raised
by both the sides in the above two appeals, it can
be conveniently observed that the learned Trial
Judge has considered fairly every aspect of this
case and has recorded just finding of conviction
against the appellants and has sentenced them to 10
years rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.1
lakh and in default of payment of fine, the
concerned convict would have to suffer additional
two years imprisonment. Therefore, the sentence
awarded to the extent of 10 years rigorous
imprisonment is on the face justifiable. The order
of conviction need no interference by this Court.

¶87

Consequently, the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 30.5.2017 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-I, Siddharth
Nagar, in Special Criminal Case No.10 of 2013
(State Vs. Indra Bahadur Pun), arising out of Case
Crime No.229 of 2013 and Special Criminal Case

¶88

¶89

No.11 of 2013 [State Vs. Mina Magar (Pun) ] under
Section 20(B)(ii)(c) of N.D.P.S. Act, Police
Station-Dhebrua, District Siddharthnagar is hereby
affirmed.

¶90

Consequently, both the appeals lack merit and
the same are dismissed.

¶91

The appellants are in jail. They shall serve
out their remaining sentence imposed on them by the
trial court.

¶92

Order date:- 18.09.2018
S Rawat

Mina Pun v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mina Pun v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premu (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kripa Shanker Alias Kripa Vs State of U.P.

Rameshwar Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munna Alias Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Hasmeen Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Omwati Vs State of U.P.