Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 909 (PAT)

Rangeela Sah v. State Of Bihar

2011-05-02

DHARNIDHAR JHA

body2011
JUDGEMENT Dharnidhar Jha, J. 1. The solitary Appellant was charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act ("the Act" for short) and was put on trial in N.D.P.S. Case No. 23 of 2002 by the learned Sessions Judge, Buxar and by the judgment which was delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Buxar on 8th February, 2008 in the above noted case was found guilty of committing the said offence. After hearing the Appellant on sentence on 14th February, 2008 the learned Special Judge directed the Appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, else to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two and half years. 2. The Informant PW. 1 stated that during the review of Simri P.S. Case No. 124 of 2002 some of the Accused persons of that case had dropped some informations that if the houses of Accused Vashistha Singh, Antu Sah, Ravi Upadhyay, Prem Singh, Chunnu Singh, Sunil Singh, Shivshankar Singh and others were searched, there could be chances of recovery of huge quantity of ganja from them as they were in the illegal trade of the contraband since long. The police, further, got information from the confession of the Accused that they had stored some ganja in the house of Accused Vashistha Singh and Antu Sah and if the raid was conducted then the same could be recovered. Accordingly, Dy. S.P., Dumaraon authorised the Informant PW. 1 Chandrama Prasad who conducted a raid at the relevant places and, accordingly, a team of police personnel and other officers were formed which included the above noted Dy. S.P., the Block Development Officer, Simri, Circle Officer, Simri and some other police officers. They all came to the house of Antu Sah where this Appellant was found sitting and on enquiry, he pointed out that the absconding Accused Antu Sah was his younger brother. On search of the house, ganja kept and concealed at three different places in three different modes, like, under the bed and in a box and also in gunny bags, weighing 300 K.Gs. was recovered. The search and recovery memo was pasted on the wall of the house and the Appellant was arrested. The houses of Shivshanker Singh, Dinesh Singh were also searched and different quantities of ganja were recovered. was recovered. The search and recovery memo was pasted on the wall of the house and the Appellant was arrested. The houses of Shivshanker Singh, Dinesh Singh were also searched and different quantities of ganja were recovered. Besides, from under a bed in the joint house of this Appellant and absconding Accused Antu Sah, some arms as per description in Exh. 3/2 were recovered which included a D.D.B.L. gun with some cartridges. The seizure memos Exhs. 3, 3/1, 3/2 and 3/3 were prepared in presence of the witnesses. 3. It appears from the record that the Appellant confessed before the team of officers specially before the B.D.O., Simri and the same was recorded by him which is in the form of Exh. 10 and he admitted all the facts stated in the written petition. It appears from the evidence ofPW. 1 the Informant and other witnesses that sample was drawn and accordingly, it was marked S/1 and thereafter the other part of ganja was ordered to be destroyed by seeking the deputation of a Magistrate and that record has also been produced during hearing of the case and those facts have been discussed by the learned Trial Judge in his judgment. The report of destruction as also the sampling and the whole manner of recovery stands recorded in the official record made by the memorandum Exh. 7 which was in the light of the order of the District and Sessions Judge dated, 9th December, 2003. 4. What, I find from the evidence adduced on record is that the proof of forming the raiding party and associating the two Executive Officers, i.e. the Block Development Officer, Simri and the Circle Officer of Brahampur has also been proved. The seizure list witnesses were also examined. It appears from the evidence of witnesses, the total of which was 11, that this could be the only case in which the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act has properly been observed and complied with. The searches were made in various houses and recoveries were also made at least from three of them of different quantities of ganja. The order was obtained immediately from the Special Court on destruction of the seized articles after keeping the part of the recovered article from the house of the present Appellant for sampling and the same was sent to the F.S.L for examination. The order was obtained immediately from the Special Court on destruction of the seized articles after keeping the part of the recovered article from the house of the present Appellant for sampling and the same was sent to the F.S.L for examination. It appears that the F.S.L. had found that the recovered article was ganja. Magistrates were duly deputed for over seeing the destruction of the seized contraband and he had recorded Exh. 7, the memorandum in which the destruction was carried out and that memorandum Exh. 7 appears signed by all officers who had been deputed for the purpose. The total weight which was destroyed also carries resemblance with the weight of the ganja recovered from different houses and on perusal of the Exh. 7 I am satisfied that the provision of the N.D.P.S. was properly complied with. The F.S.L. report was marked as Exh. 8 and that has been discussed in detail by the learned Trial Judge in his judgment and he has placed reliance on it and has held that the recovery of ganja, a prohibited substance under the Act was made. From the evidence on record which was adduced by the Trial Court that the recovery was from the joint house of the present Appellant and his brother. 5. It was contended by Sri Shyama Kant Singh, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the Appellant that the Appellant was residing separately from his brother and the house from which the recoveries of ganja were made was in exclusive possession of his brother. However, the confessional statement of the Appellant Exh. 10 indicates that it was the joint house of the Appellant and Antu Sah and he could not avoid having the conscious knowledge of the fact that ganja was in possession jointly of him as also his brother. 6. Considering the evidence on record the Court finds no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.