Jaiparkash vs State of Haryana

Surinder Gupta, J.—Counsel for the appellant has not appeared despite service.

The appellant in this case faced trial for offence punishable u/s 20 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in case bearing FIR No. 313 dated 27.08.2008 registered at police station Barwala for possession of 420 grams of charas and was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. He was awarded the sentence to undergo RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-.

As per the case of the prosecution the appellant was apprehended by the police party headed by ASI Ranjit Singh on the basis of suspicion near Bhanbhori turn Barwala and on his search a plastic bag containing charas was recovered. Out of that charas two samples of 10 grams each were separated and the remaining charas was found to be 400 grams. Parcel of the sample and the residue was prepared and sealed on the spot. The appellant was formally arrested and after completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court.

In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined PW-1 ASI Raj Kumar, PW-2 ASI Ramesh Chander, PW-3 C. Ashok Kumar, PW-4 SI Pahlad Rai, PW-5 ASI Ranjeet Singh, PW-6 ASI Rajmal whereas PW Naresh Kumar was given up.

After completion of the prosecution evidence statement of the appellant u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied allegation leveled against him and pleaded his false implication.

The prosecution in order to prove its case has relied upon the testimony of investigating officer ASI Ranjeet Singh PW-5, recovery witness ASI Ramesh Chander PW-2 who have supported the case of the prosecution. On return to the police station the case property was produced before the SHO Pahlad Rai PW-4 for verification, who after verifying the facts relating to recovery of contraband from appellant, had put his own seal bearing impression ''RK'' on each bag and sample. The report also endorsed to the DSP Puran Singh.

On perusal of the record with the assistance of State counsel I find that there are no material discrepancy in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellant for offence punishable u/s 20 of the NDPS Act.

The trial Court has awarded sentence of 5 years to the appellant. He was earlier convict in another case bearing FIR No. 372 dated 17.11.2004 registered at police station Barwala for offence punishable u/s 15 NDPS Act in that case he was awarded RI of four years. This show that appellant is a habitual offender and the sentence awarded by the trial Court is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. The same is also maintained. The appeal has no merits and the same is dismissed.

Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar for appropriate action.