Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Munesh Kumar @ Munesh Kumaar Singh Versus State of Bihar, Union of India

2016 (3) TMI 940 - PATNA HIGH COURT

Seeking modification of sentence order - Seizure of 116 packets of Ganja weighing 432.900 kilograms - Appellant convicted under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act - Held that:- it is to be clarified that the appellant is to be convicted under Section 20(ii) (C) N.D.P.S. Act rather under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The charge was framed saying that the appellant was found in illegal possession of 432.900 kilograms of contraband Ganja which he was carrying by a Truck which shows that he knew .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppellant has been convicted under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and fine of ₹ 2,00,000/-, in default of which, further rigorous imprisonment for three years vide Judgment of conviction dated 25.07.2011 and Order of sentence dated 28.07.2011 passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Araria, in Special Case No.13 of 2006/Trial No.18 of 2006. 2. The case of the prosecution, according to the Complainant M .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

after, the prosecution report was instituted on 13.11.2006 after receipt of the F.S.L. Report dated 25.09.2006 3. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, we find that P.W.1 Gopal Sharma is one of the persons on the point of seizure. He was an Electrician and independent witness who stated that on the date of occurrence, he saw some persons being interrogated and a secret cavity of the truck was forcibly opened, from which 116 packets of Ganja was recovered which was weighed and it was fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat one packet contained 5 kilograms whereas the second packet contained 4 kilograms and third packet contained 3 kilograms. What it means, one does not really know. 4. P.W.2 Mukesh Kumar Bhardwaj is the Complainant, who stated that on 12.09.2006 at about 11.00 A.M. he got secret information about a truck carrying Ganja at which a person present on the truck was intercepted and the Appellant was arrested. 'Ganja' was found in the secret cavity which was cut opened in presence of the witn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sses, accused, Superintendent and himself. He stated that the Appellant admitted his guilt whereafter he was produced before the Special Judge. He prepared the Prosecution Report (Ext.8). In cross examination, we find that he explained the entire procedure in terms of time as to when truck was seized and the articles recovered. He stated that the Ganja was divided in three groups of 5 to 6 packets each after tearing slightly of major packets but the sample was not collected from each packet. 5. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ents of the vehicle. The Appellant allegedly admitted his guilt. In cross examination, there is nothing to discredit the factum of seizure and recovery. 6. P.W.4 Samir Kumar Sinha was the Customs Inspector at Jogbani on 12.09.2006 and he also corroborated the evidence of P.W.3 on material particulars. In cross examination, he stated that the checking was done in the office and the sample of seized material was prepared in 6 packets. 7. P.W.5 Satyendra Kishore Lal was also the Customs Inspector o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ja was recovered from the truck and the Appellant was driving the said truck. He does not say anything in the cross examination which is to be noted down. 9. P.W.7 Indrajeet Prasad Singh was also the Customs Superintendent at Jogbani on the date of occurrence who corroborated the earlier statements of the witnesses. He stated, in cross examination, that he had not taken any action in the matter. 10. On going through the evidence on record, we find that whereas P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version