Chattisgarh High Court
Shyam Lal Manjhi vs The State Of C.G on 24 September, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 318 of 2001
Shyamlal Manjhi S/o Gountu Manjhi aged about 27 years, R/o
Village Dongaripali, P.S. Chhura, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station - Chhura, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Ms. Iturani Mukharjee, Adv.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Anurag Verma, PL.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order on Board
24/09/2021
1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2001 passed by the
Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Raipur, (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case. No.
20/2000 whereby, the learned Special Judge, Raipur convicted the
appellant and sentenced him as under :-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 20(B)(1) r/w Section R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in
8 of N.D.P.S. Act default of fine additional R.I. for 2 months.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.04.2000 at about 2 O'clock
in the night station in-charge of the station Chhura, Prem Sahu got
information through an informer that Shyamlal is bringing hemp
(Ganja) in the sack behind the cycle from the Boodha Pahad, who will
go through village Kansindhi, this information was written by Prem
Sahu as an informer Panchnama Ex.-P/9 prepared and prepared
Panchnama of Ex.-P/10 in respect of information about not getting
search warrant and sent copies of both to S.D.O.P., Gariaband. After
registering the departure No. 373 for immediate raid action, police
personnel reached village Kansindhi with constable No. 1502 and No.
194, near the Panchayat building, summoned the witnesses Kamal
Kumar and Udhoram, instructed them to remain present in the
proceedings while being informed about the informer information, at
about 6:15 O'clock the accused was seen coming near the Panchayat
building, who was stopped and questioned, he said his name
Shyamlal. Thereafter, the in-charge of the station made him aware of
his right by giving him a written notice Ex.-P/1, that if he wanted, he
could get his search done by any gazetted officer or magistrate, on
which the accused gave his consent to the police station in-charge
Prem Sahu.
3. The consent letter was written by the witness Kamal Kumar on
behalf of the accused, after which the accused was searched, hemp
(Ganja) was filled in green polythene inside a white plastic sack in the
carrier of the bicycle in the possession of the accused. The accused
told the weight of the hemp (Ganja) to be 5.500 Kg., which was
weighed by Ashok Thakur, the total weight of the hemp (Ganja) was
found to be 8.150 Kg. including the sack. From the possession of the
accused, the hemp (Ganja) was confiscated along with the seizure of
the cycle (Ex.-P/6). After coming back to the police station, FIR Ex.-
P/12 was registered against the accused and the accused was
apprised of the reason for the arrest and the arrest was made as per
Ex.- P/7.
4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 6 witnesses. Statement of the accused person
was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied
the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence
and false implication in the case.
5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial
Court convicted the appellant under Section 20(B)(1) r/w Section 8 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced
him as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal filed by the appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to law and facts
available on record. He further submits that the prosecution neither
could prove the seizer of alleged contraband nor could prove the
compliance of the mandatory and directive provisions of the NDPS
Act. He lastly submits that there are material contradictions in the
statements of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, the same aught
not to have been relied upon. Therefore, judgment of conviction and
order of sentence is liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand State counsel supporting the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence submitted that the trial
Court has not committed any error of law. It is in strictly in accordance
with law and no inference is called for.
8. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of
the witnesses Udhoram (PW-1), Kamal Kumar (PW-2), Ramadhar Sahu
(PW-3), Ganga Sagar Singh (PW-4), Jagmohan Singh Oti (PW-5), and
Prem Sahu (PW-6) have established the involvement of the
accused/appellant in the crime and stands proved beyond reasonable
doubt. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded
by the Court below as regards conviction of the appellant under
Section 20(B)(1) r/w Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act.
9. Learned trial Court also relied upon the statement of the
witnesses and found that accused person is guilty of Section 20(B)(1)
r/w Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
and convicted him. This finding is based on oral and documentary
evidence, therefore, this Court find no error. The appeal being devoid
of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
10. As per the report dated 17.09.2021 received from
Superintendent Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.), the appellant has suffered
the full jail term and released from jail, therefore no further order for
his arrest, etc. is required.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
udge
H. L. Sahu
