Allahabad High Court
Lahri vs State Of U.P. on 6 July, 2022
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1384 of 2010
Appellant :- Lahri
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Naseerullah,Anubhav Dwivedi,Jaskaran Lal Maurya,Prem Shanker,Ram Pheran Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant to assail judgment and order dated 23.04.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-2, Shrawasti in Crl. Case No.12 of 2009; State Vs. Lahri, under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act relating to Crime No.372/2009, under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Malhipur, District Shrawasti, convicting and sentencing the accused appellant to undergo 10 years R.I. and pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo two years additional imprisonment.
None responds for the appellant when the case was called out. However, Sri Balram, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
Since this appeal pertains to the year 2010 and is old, therefore, the same is proposed to be disposed of on the basis of available record and with the assistance of learned A.G.A.
The prosecution story in brief is that on 04.04.2009, Sub Inspector Praveen Singh, Incharge SOG alongwith his other police personnels was busy in supervising law and order of the area when a person, named, Lahri S/o Dulare R/o District Banke, Nepal was apprehended by them, from whose possession, 2.3 Kg. charas was recovered. 50 gm. of charas was taken out from the recovered charas and was sealed separately for sending the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its chemical examination. Recovery memo/arrest memo was prepared on the spot as Ex. Ka-1 by this witness.
The accused was arrested and was brought to the Police Station Malhipur, District Shrawasti where on the basis of aforesaid recovery memo/arrest memo, the Case Crime No.372 of 2009, under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S., Act was registered as Ex. Ka-2.
The investigation of the matter was undertaken by the Sub Inspector C.D. Yadav who recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., visited the place of arrest/recovery and prepared a site plan as Ex. Ka-4.
Upon conclusion of investigation, Chargesheet Ex. Ka-6 was submitted against the appellant under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act.
The appellant was charged with offence under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.-1 (Rajendra Prasad), P.W.-2 (Janardan Yadav), P.W.-3 (Shabir Ahmad), P.W.-4 (Chandra Dev Singh) and P.W.-5 (Mubaraq).
Ram Praghat has been examined from the side of appellants as D.W.-1.
The accused, in his statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution story and stated that he was falsely implicated because he belongs to Nepal. He also claimed himself to be innocent.
The appellant ultimately got convicted vide impugned order and aggrieved thereby he preferred the present appeal.
Though there is non one to argue for the appellant, however, it is born out from the memo of appeal that the instant appeal has been filed on the ground that conviction of appellant was recorded by the learned trial court against the weight of evidence available on record. He was falsely implicated because he belongs to Nepal. It is also stated that the mandatory compliance, as envisaged in N.D.P.S. Act, were not complied with which renders the impugned judgment illegal. He has also stated that there was no eye witness to the alleged recovery/arrest, therefore, the same could not be relied in any manner. It is also stated that one of the witness of fact, namely, Mubaraq has turned hostile. It is, thus, prayed in the memo of appeal that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.
Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that from the perusal of testimony of witnesses examined by the prosecution, offence under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act has been duly proved against the appellant who was rightly convicted and sentenced therefor by the learned trial court, in which no interference in exerxise of power of this Court under Section 386 Cr.P.C. is warranted in any manner. He also submitted that there is no adverse impact on the otherwise proved story of prosecution simply because one of the witness of fact turned hostile because it is settled law that this is not a sole ground to discard the entire prosecution story if it is otherwise found to be proved. He has, thus, prayed that appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Having heard submissions of learned A.G.A. and upon close scrutiny of prosecution witnesses, who were examined before the trial court, this Court finds that there is nothing on record which indicates that the provision of Section 50 N.D.P.S. At was not complied with in this case. There is nothing in law which makes statement of police personnels inadmissible on the sole ground that they are the police officials.
There is nothing on record to show that the appellant, who is said to be resident of Nepal, was falsely implicated by the police personnels who were not at all acquainted with him earlier. The F.S.L. report, Ex. ka-5 which is available on record reveals that the substance which was recovered from the possession of appellant on the date of his arrest was found to be psychotropic substance being charas. Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality in the finding guilt recorded by the learned trial court. The Conviction under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. is upheld.
On the record, a report of Central Jail, Varanasi is also available indicating that the appellant has already served out the sentence and deposited the entire fine amount.
Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of this case, the present appeal lacks merit, which is accordingly dismissed.
Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial court for necessary information and compliance.
Order Date :- 6.7.2022
Saurabh
