Crl.A. 94/2017. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | Crl.A. 94/2017 |
| Judgement Date | August 14, 2018 |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2017
Md. Abdul Kadir Mazumdar ,
Son of Late Arjad Ali,
Resident of Village Nagayapam,
P.O. and P.S. Jamunamukh, Dist. Hojai, Assam. Pin-782428.
----- Appellant
– VERSUS –
-
State of Assam .
-
The Union of India,
Represented by the Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Guwahati.
----- Opposite Parties.
B E F O R E
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hitesh Kumar Sarma
Advocates for the Appellant : Mr. AI Uddin, Ms. R Momtaz, Mr. MA Laskar,
Mr. M Ali, Advocates.
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. SC Keyal, Asst. Solicitor General of India.
Date of hearing :27th of July, 2017.
Date of Judgment :14th of August, 2017.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
This appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment and order, dated 24-08-2016, passed by learned Special Judge, Nagaon, in Sessions (NDPS) Case No. 59(N) of 2005, convicting the accused-appellant, under Sections 20(ii)(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act). to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year .
Crl. Appeal No. 94 of 2017 Page 1 of 13
-
I have heard Mr. AI Uddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant and Mr. SC Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India.
-
The fact of the case is that on 04-09-2003, receiving a secret information regarding illegal possession and trafficking of Ganja, the Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Guwahati (herein after referred to as DRI) with the assistance of Guwahati Customs Division & Nagaon Police raided the house of one Md. Abdul Kadir Majumdar and recovered 301 packages of Manipuri Ganja wrapped in blue and black plastic sheets, weighing 5581.5 kgs. An electoral document was also seized from the house which stood in the name of the accused appellant. The said Ganja was seized in presence of witnesses. Inventory was also prepared. The sample, as prescribed, was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Guwahati for examination. The sample gave positive test for Ganja on examination by Forensic Science Laboratory. Then the case was forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon. As the accusedappellant absconded during the raid of his house, summon was affixed on the wall of his house, and on his failure to respond to the summon, NonBailable Warrant of Arrest was issued against him. On 07-09-2003, the accused appellant was arrested, and during interrogation, he disclosed the name of co-accused Ajnoor Choudhury, Baharuddin and Rafique Choudhury, who were involved with loading, unloading, storage, concealment and trafficking of the said Ganja.
-
Accordingly, Final Report was submitted against them in the Court on 05-11-2003 for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20/22/23/27A/60/61 of the NDPS Act.
-
A formal charge was framed against the accused appellant was framed under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 25 of the NDPS Act. The
Crl. Appeal No. 94 of 2017 Page 2 of 13
charge was read over and explained to the accused appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
-
In this case, prosecution led evidence of six witnesses to substantiate the charge against the accused persons and the defence led no evidence. The defence plea is of total denial.
-
In his statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accusedappellant not only denied the accusations levelled against him but also denied that the Ganja seized in this case was seized from his house.
-
The learned trial Court found and held the accused-appellant guilty for the offence under Section 20(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and found evidence insufficient against him to prove the offence under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused appellant and sentenced him as indicated above.
-
Now, this, Court is to see whether the accused appellant, Md. Abdul Kadir Majumdar was found illegal possession of 5581 kgs of Ganja on 04-09-2003 in contravention of the provision of NDPS Act, punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C).
-
The learned counsel for defence, during his argument before this Court, argued only one issue. This is in respect of possession of the seized Ganja by him and recovery of the same. The learned counsel for the accused appellant has strenuously argued that he was not in possession of the seized Ganja and that it was not recovered from his house, as alleged. He has also submitted that the electoral roll, bearing the name of the accused appellant, recovered from the house from where the seized Ganja was recovered, cannot be the basis for arriving at a conclusion that it was his house from where the Ganja, involved in this case, was seized. During the course of argument learned counsel for accused appellant has
Crl. Appeal No. 94 of 2017 Page 3 of 13
specifically submitted that this is the only point, which he was pressing before the Court.
-
In view...
To continue reading
Request your trial