Prakash Sahu 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 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), in

¶16

2

¶17

Special (NDPS) Case No. 232/2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:-

¶18

Convicted	Sentenced to
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of	R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985	25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months.

¶19

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.03.2016, Inspector N.R. Bhagat, Station House Officer, Police Station GRP Bilaspur, received information through telephone from an informant that a male person, aged between 24 to 26 years, wheatish complexion, slim build, wearing a brown colour half shirt, blue colour jeans and black colour backpack containing psychotropic drug ganja for illegal sale, which is sitting at platform no. 5 of Bilaspur railway station, waiting to leave by a train, on which he prepared informer's information in the presence of witnesses, informed witnesses Deepak Singh and Laxminarayan about the informer's information, recorded informer's information panchnama, search panchnama without warrant in Roznamcha Sanha 38, prepared informer's information panchnama and search panchnama without warrant for senior officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Railway Raipur to be present at the spot, and constable no. 335 was sent to Sadar office Raipur to give information, after that, on the apprehension of delay in arrival of senior officer at the spot, Inspector N.R. Bhagat immediately sent staff head constables No. 195, 411, constables No. 74, 133, 454, 456, witness Deepak to the spot for verification

¶20

3

¶21

of informer's information panchnama. Singh and Laxminarayan along with investigation box, weighing scales left for the spot of incident. After that, reaching the spot of incident, platform number 5 of Bilaspur railway station, searched for the suspect told by the informer. A person matching the description given by the informer was found on the spot, who on seeing the police started moving away with his bag, who was surrounded and caught, on questioning he told his name as Prakash Sahu, father Surendra, age 26 years resident of Kalunga police station Bamhnitran district Sundargarh Odisha and on asking what was in the bag, he started avoiding and later told that there was ganja in the bag, after that when asked about the documents of carrying ganja on the spot, he said that he did not have them. Taking legal action under the legal provisions on the spot, a notice was issued to the accused Prakash Sahu under section 50 NDPS. According to the Act, consent letter, dress search panchnama, recovery panchnama, physical panchnama, seizure memo, a black coloured backpack with two chains, 05 packets of khaki coloured cellotape pasted inside, 10 kg slightly wet, psychoactive plant narcotic substance Ganja, worth Rs. 40,000/- was taken out little by little from the seized packets of witnesses present on the spot, two samples of Ganja, 50-50 grams each, were given mark A-1, A-2 for chemical test and it was sealed by pasting a slip signed by the witnesses present on the spot and the accused himself, thus the narcotic substance Ganja was 09 kg 850 grams and 50 grams. The burnt material

¶22

4

¶23

was sealed. The accused's actions were found to be a crime under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. A case was registered and investigated. A map of the scene was prepared, and a First Information Report was filed at the police station. The accused was arrested. Witness statements were recorded. The seized goods were handed over to the head constable, store clerk, GRP, Bilaspur, for safekeeping. A confiscation receipt was obtained, which was entered in the confiscated goods register by the head constable. Testing of the seized goods at the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, revealed them to be marijuana. Information regarding the entire case was sent to the senior officer and the court. Following a thorough investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused in court under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

¶24

The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act, 1985) Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 31.05.2017, 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.

¶25

The appellant was in jail from 14.03.2016 to 13.06.2017 ( 1 year 3 months)

¶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

¶27

5

¶28

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.

¶29

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 36 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2017 and has already undergone around 1 year 3 months 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.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 14.03.2016, acting on secret information, police apprehended Prakash Sahu at Platform No. 5 of Bilaspur Railway Station and, after complying with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, recovered 10 kg of ganja from his

¶33

6

¶34

backpack. 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, 1985 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. 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 3 years to appellant and fine of Rs. 25,000/-. 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.

¶35

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 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.

¶36

As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2017, consid-

¶37

7

¶38

ering 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 14.03.2016 to 13.06.2017 (1 year and 3 months), 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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge

¶43

Madhurima

Prakash Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Sahu 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

Tankadhar Paangi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh