Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 479 (PAT)

Vinay Kumar Thakur v. Union of India

2012-03-20

MANDHATA SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh. - Prosecution story, in short, is that after receiving of specific information about carrying of ganja on a Truck, a team of D.R.I. officials intercepted the Truck bearing No. WB-25B-2354 at NH28. P.S. Motipur, District Muzaffarpur on 7.10.2004. 2. Appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 2011 was driver of the Truck while that of 267 of 20 11 was cleaner (Khalasi) of the same. Truck was searched in presence of accused appellants, independent witnesses and members of the team (raiding party). 93 packets of ganja in Polythene contained in 37 plastic bag were recovered from the Truck. weight of recovered ganja was 605 kgs. ganja as well as Truck both were seized. Further it is said that both accused appellants made confession in presence of independent witnesses about their carrying ganja for taking its charge of Rs. 5.000/- on instigation of one Md. Raja of Raxaul. Said ganja was loaded on their Truck near Flour Mill at Laxmipur, Raxaul by Md. Saidullah and Md. Raja and same was to be delivered to one Dinesh Rai of Jethuli, Patna. Further it is said that after obtaining sample of ganja same was sent for chemical analysis to Government Laboratory at Gazipur, U.P. and its report received on 10/16-11-2004 which was found to be ganja. 3. The trial ended in conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 20(b)ii(c) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act to accused appellants by passing the impugned judgment and order in D.R.L Case No. 17/2004 validity of which has been questioned through filing these appeals. 4. In all five witnesses arc examined in the case, they are PW 1 Kamal Singh. PW 2 Indradeo, PW 3 Rajesh Kumar Shrivastava I.O. of the case and member of raiding party. PW 4 Rajendra Pd. Singh and PW 5 Rahul Kumar. 5. PW 5 is said independent witness on the point of seizure. PW 4 is a witness to prove certification for 605 kgs of ganja. Rest of witnesses are members of raiding party of them PW 3 is I.O. of the case also. 6. All the three witnesses namely P.Ws 1 to 3 are making their statement on the point of interception of Truck, its search, recovery of ganja and its weight to 605 kgs. Rest of witnesses are members of raiding party of them PW 3 is I.O. of the case also. 6. All the three witnesses namely P.Ws 1 to 3 are making their statement on the point of interception of Truck, its search, recovery of ganja and its weight to 605 kgs. PW 3 is there on the point of taking of sample for sending the same to Government laboratory and receiving of its report about being seized article as ganja. 7. There appears limited points to be raised on behalf of accused appellants to doubt the recovery, specifically it is submitted that PW 5 was not present at the time of preparation of seizure list. In chief he states about preparation of seizure list and signing the same by him and both the accused appellants. No doubt in paragraph 16 he states that he signed the same when was asked by Custom Officer. R.K. Srivastava, PW 3 but in paragraph 2 and 3 he states that on the day of occurrence a truck was stopped by P.Ws 1,2 and 3 and there was recovery of 93 packets of ganja thereafter only seizure list was prepared. In cross-examination, further it has come that sample was also taken in his presence which was sealed also and his signature was obtained on the envelope. Number of Truck if is not remembered to him that cannot be taken to doubt the seizure. In cross-examination to PW 1 some queries are there on behalf of defence in that continuation in paragraph-4 he states that if there was any secret information, no paper was shown to him. I think not necessary. He also shows his ignorance about seizure that also cannot be doubted as he is clear on the point that the Truck in question was intercepted by the team of which he was also a member and there was recovery of ganja in 93 packets. 8. Witnesses have been discussed at length discussing the points raised and conviction is reached after full satisfaction by the trial Court. I also find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order at any corner. So there appears no scope to interfere with the same. On the point of sentence awarded to the appellants there is no scope to minimise the same as minimum punishment for sentence and fine is awarded to them (appellants). 9. I also find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order at any corner. So there appears no scope to interfere with the same. On the point of sentence awarded to the appellants there is no scope to minimise the same as minimum punishment for sentence and fine is awarded to them (appellants). 9. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.1.2011 and 14; 1.2011 passed in D.R.I. Case No. 17/2004 is hereby affirmed. 10. A copy of this judgment along with lower Court records be sent back to the trial Court forthwith. Appeal dismissed.