Pintoo @ Mahesh Anors vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1203 Chatt

                                         1

                                                                              NAFR

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              Cr.A . No. 299 of 2013

   1. Pintoo @ Mahesh, S/o Ram Bharosa Yadav, Aged About 22 Years R/o In Front
      of Rao Pathology Mahasamund Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

   2. Sonu Sendre, S/o Chandu Sendre Aged About 20 Years, R/o Infront of Rao
      Pathology Mahasamund Distt. Mahasamund C.G.

                                                                      ---- Appellants

                                      Versus

   • State of Chhattisgarh Through Distt. Magistrate Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                    ---- Respondent

For Appellants : Shri Pritam Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Akhtar Hussain, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Order on Board 16/07/2021

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

14/03/2013 passed in Special Criminal Case No.58/2011 by the

Special Judge (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985), Raipur, (C.G.), whereby the appellants have been convicted

under Section 20 (b) (ii) (b) of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo

R.I. for 6-6 months and fine of Rs. 5,000/-5,000/- each, with default

stipulations.

2. According to the case of prosecution, on 01/10/2011, Meeluram

Kanwar, Assistant Sub-Inspector, received an information from the

informant that two persons are going on motorcycle bearing

registration number CG 06 K 9473 and are in possession of some

contraband ganja. Upon receiving such information, he recorded the

said information in Rojnamcha Sanha, called the witneeses, necessary

procedures were followed and thereafter, police personnel reached the

spot. On being searched, total 2 Kg and 300gm of contraband ganja

was found and seized from their possession. Thereafter, two sample

packets of 25-25 gms each were prepared. Seizures were made and

after following other formalities, sample packets were deposited in

Malkhana. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.

The Trial Court framed the charges. To prove the guilt of the

accused/appellants, prosecution has examined as many as 6

witnesses. No defence witness has been examined. Statement of the

appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C has been recorded,

wherein they have pleaded innocence and false implication in the

matter.

3. After trial, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants

as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

4. A certificate of incarceration sent by the Jail Superintendent, Central

Jail, Raipur, (C.G.) dated 01/03/2021 would mention that appellant

No.1 namely Pintu @ Mahesh and appellant No.2 namely Sonu

Sendra have undergone the entire jail sentence imposed upon them

by the trial Court and already released on 09/11/2013 & 03/10/2013

respectively.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that

appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case.

They are wrongly convicted by the trial Court without there being any

sufficient and clinching evidence against them. He further submits that

seizure witnesses of the case have not supported the case of the

prosecution. There are material contradictions and omissions occurred

in the statements of the witnesses. Therefore, conviction of the

appellants are not sustainable.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supports the

impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial

Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the

record, statement of witnesses and other documents annexed with the

record minutely.

8. Though seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the

prosecution but Investigating Officer of the case namely Meeluram

Kanwar, A.S.I. (PW-5) has supported the entire case of the

prosecution and deposed according to the case of prosecution. His

statement is duly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses i.e.

Jainath Singh (PW-3), Aatmaram Bharti (PW-4) and Sonprasad Rajetri

(PW-6). All the above witnesses have remained firm during their cross-

examination. There is nothing on the record on the basis of which their

statements can be dis-believed.

9. Looking to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that

there is sufficient evidence against the appellants to hold them guilty.

In my considered view, the trial Court has rightly convicted the

appellants.

10. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.

11. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this

order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Prakash