Bhongu Pangi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.06.2016 passed by the learned

¶16

2

¶17

Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No. 893/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:-

¶18

Convicted Sentenced to

¶19

U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs. N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months.

¶20

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 08.07.2015, at 15:20 hrs., L.S. Rajput, Station House Officer/Sub-Inspector, GRP, Raipur, received information from an informant that three young men were carrying a backpack and a bag containing marijuana. They had arrived by bus and were sitting near the safe deposit box on Platform No. 1 of Raipur Railway Station, waiting for a train to Delhi. The police summoned witnesses and prepared an informant's report and, in light of their inability to obtain a search warrant, a warrantless search report. Both reports were sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Railway, Raipur. Upon arriving at the scene and finding the accused, Bhongu Pangi, based on the informant's information, he was served with a notice requesting a magistrate or gazetted police officer to search his backpack and bag, or to have the investigating officer, L.S. Rajput, search his bag. The accused was given consent to be searched by the investigating officer. The police allowed the accused to search witnesses and other staff members. A total of 10 kilograms of marijuana was found in the accused's backpack and bag. This was

¶21

3

¶22

identified, and two sample packets of fifty grams each were prepared from it. The marijuana and sample packets were sealed, and the marijuana and the train ticket found with the accused were seized from the accused. The police returned to the police station with the witnesses, the accused, and the seized goods and deposited them in the police station's storeroom. A First Information Report was filed. The accused was arrested. Witness statements were recorded. Information regarding the proceedings was sent to the senior police officer and the court. The seized sample packet was chemically tested at the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, and it was found to be marijuana. The police completed the investigation and submitted the final report to this court on 02.09.2015. When charges were framed against the accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, he denied having committed the crime. During the trial under Section 313 of the CrPC, the accused pleaded innocence and falsely implicated.

¶23

The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 14.06.2016, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order.

¶24

The appellant was in jail from 08.07.2015 to 11.01.2017 (around 1 year and 6 months and 24 days).

¶25

4

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and the mandatory provisions have not been followed by the prosecution. The judgment of the Trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned Trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the appellants and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appellant at present is aged about 30 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2015 and has already undergone around 1 year 6 months and 24 days of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶28

Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶30

5

¶31

From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 08.07.2015, acting on secret information, GRP Raipur police apprehended accused Bhongu Pangi at Platform No. 1 of Raipur Railway Station. After complying with Section 50 of the NDPS Act and obtaining his consent, a search of his backpack and bag led to recovery of 10 kilograms of ganja. Two samples of 50 grams each were drawn and sealed, and the remaining contraband was seized. An offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act was registered. The accused was arrested, the samples were sent for chemical examination which confirmed the substance to be ganja, and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court. The accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication during trial. After following the due processes, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S.

¶32

Therefore, the essence of the above discussion is that the Investigating Officer in this case appears to have followed all the mandatory and directive provisions of the NDPS Act. There is no concrete reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Investigating Officer and other witnesses and the action taken by them. The accused

¶33

6

¶34

did not produce any valid license or document in relation to the narcotic substance recovered from his possession. Therefore, it is proved that the appellant possessed 10 kg of ganja in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act.

¶35

As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2015, considering the age of the appellant at present and further considering the quantity of contraband seized from the possession of appellant i.e. 10 kg contraband(ganja), which is intermediate quantity and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant was in jail from 08.07.2015 to 11.01.2017 (around 1 year 6 months and 24 days), therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B). However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained.

¶36

With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is allowed in part . The appellant is held guilty of committing offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and is convicted for the said offence. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is reported to be on bail. Surety and personal bond earlier furnished at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

¶37

7

¶38

Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Arvind Kumar Verma )

¶41

Judge

¶42

Madhurima

Bhongu Pangi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhongu Pangi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priya Mishra Vs National Testing Agency

Ajay Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hem Lal and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harishankar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Prakash Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Tankadhar Paangi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh