This High Court confirmed the conviction under the NDPS Act based on departmental witnesses but reduced the 10-year sentence to 6 years due to the appellant's youth, lack of prior record, and time already served.
Sentence reduced to 6 years; order to surrender executed to serve remainder of term.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 771 of 2012
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellant Mr. J.K. Saxena, Advocate For State Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.Sam Koshy
Judgment On Board
21.11.2016
2
each containing 5 kg of contraband and the contraband was later seized and the seizure memo Ex.P/14 was also prepared and the weighment was conducted in the presence of the witness PW-10, Ram Gopal Jaiswal. After weighment panchnama was Ex.P/15 was also prepared. Finally FIR Ex.P/26 was lodged and the seized article was sent to Malkhana through Receipt Ex.P/21. The sample which was collected from each of the packets was also sent for FSL vide Ex.P/17 report of which was also received Ex.P18 showing that the contraband seized was Ganja. Thereafter the matter was put to trial and during the course of the trial the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and no witness on behalf of the defence was examined. The trial Court finally vide the impugned order dated 18.07.2012 found the appellant guilty of committing the offence and convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 20(B)(2)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and default stipulation.
3
the possession of the present appellant was 15 kg, it can not be said that the sentence for the period of 10 years is on higher side and prayed for the rejection of the appeal. He further submits that prosecution in the instant case has been able to establish its case by leading cogent evidence of the departmental witnesses. Accordingly though the independent witness have not supported the case to the extent of denying the seizure as well as weighment part is concerned. But all the witnesses accepted of their putting signature to the weighment Panchnama as well as seizure memo and other proceeding drawn. The State Counsel therefore submits that the case of the prosecution stands established on the basis of the departmental witnesses alone.
4
investigating officer PW-12, Moti Lal Sharma and the other departmental witnesses examined. Hence the conviction so far as the present appellant under section 20(B)(2)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act is concerned does not warrant any interference and the same stands confirmed.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE
kishore
2 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction proved by departmental witnesses alone despite lack of independent witness support.
Whether sentence of 10 years for 15 kg ganja is excessive given appellant was already in custody for over 5 years and had no antecedents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.P. Fathima v. State of KerlaFollowed¶5
2003 (8) SCC 726 · Who else cites this
Kuldeep Singh v. State of PunjabFollowed¶5
(2010) 10 SCC 219 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sobhit Ram Chouhan
State of C.G.
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
