Cri. Appeal No. 121 of 1997 (R). Case: Mahesh Singh Vs State of Bihar (now Jharkhand). Jharkhand High CEGAT & CESTAT High Court

Case NumberCri. Appeal No. 121 of 1997 (R)
CounselFor Appellant: Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Adv. and For Respondents: T. N. Verma, APP.
JudgesAmareshwar Sahay, J.
IssueNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985) - Section 20B(i)
Citation2006 CriLJ 3934
Judgement DateMay 25, 2006
CourtJharkhand High CEGAT & CESTAT High Court


  1. This appeal arises against the judgment dated 24-6-1997 passed by the Special Judge, Dhanbad in C.E. Case No. 459 of 1995, whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant for committing the offence under Section 20-B(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and has sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of 3 months.

  2. The prosecution story is that on 1-9-1995 at about 2.30 P. M. Pavitra Mandal, Sub-Inspector of Excise (PW-4) along with Jairam Bhagat, Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Excise (PW-1), Baban Prasad an Excise Constable (PW-2) and Suman Kumar Singh (PW-3), conducted a raid and search of the Gumti of the appellant under the direction, supervision and control of the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Dhanbad and in course of search recovered 58 small packets (Puria) each containing 2 grams of Ganja and 20 such packets of each containing 2 grams of contraband Ganja were recovered and seized from the "Gumti" of the appellant. A seizure list was prepared in presence of two independent witnesses namely, Sattar Khan and Madan Kumar Singh. The sample of Ganja seized, was sent for Chemical Analyst, which according to the report of Chemical Analyst was found to be Ganja.

  3. The defence of the appellant was total denial of the occurrence and of false implication.

  4. In order to establish the charges, altogether four prosecution witnesses were examined. PW-1 is the A.S.I. of Excise Jairam Bhagat. PW-2 is Baban Prasad Excise Constable. PW-3 is Suman Kumar Singh another Excise Constable and PW-4 is the Sub-Inspector of Excise Pavitra Mandal. All the aforesaid four witnesses have stated that from the "Gumti" of the appellant 156 grams of Ganja in 58 small packets (Puria) were recovered and each puria contained 2 grams of Ganja.

    On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated earlier.

  5. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the seizure and recovery of the alleged Ganja from the "Gumti" of the appellant has not been established by the prosecution and, therefore, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is bad in law. Elaborating his argument, the learned counsel submitted that according to the prosecution itself...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT