9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment of two years. 2) Brief facts: On 28.05.2006, on receiving information that a person is coming with contraband item from Tyuni to Kalsi, a team of Special Task Force consisting of Sub-Inspector Ved Prakash Thapliyal (PW-1), Sub Inspector Davender Singh (PW-2), Head Constable Bhawan Singh with Constables, Nagesh Pal, Vijender Singh, Mahender Singh and Harshvardhan along with Driver Dhanveer Patwal proceeded in a vehicle bearing No. UA07-L 1777. When they reached near Chakbh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment of the Trial Court, the appellant through Superintendent of District Jail, Dehradun, filed an appeal from jail being Criminal Jail Appeal No. 04 of 2010 before the High Court. 7) The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 18.11.2011, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment/order passed by the Trial Court. 8) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court. 9) Heard Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the respondent. 10) Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand, learned counsel for the appellant (accused) while assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order argued o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cused was intercepted by police there were public men witnessing the incident. As such, there was no occasion on the part of the policemen to get the recovery memo signed from the witnesses of public. Otherwise, also normally the public is reluctant to be witnessed in such kind of cases. (7) Attention of this Court is drawn to the contradictions found in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Reference is made to the statement of PW1 Sub-Inspector Ved Prakash Thapliyal and PW-5 Dinesh Chander Singh Rawat. PW1 Sub-Inspector Ved Prakash Thapliyal has stated that the weights brought by the constable were of 5 kilogram, 2 kilogram, 1 kilogram, half kilogram, 200 gram and 100 gram. On the other hand (PW5) Dinesh Singh Rawat has stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt requires no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed." 14) Perusal of the relevant portion from the impugned order quoted supra would go to show that the appellant did not urge the point before the High Court which he has urged here. Be that as it may, it has otherwise no substance. 15) We find from the record of the case that the recovery of contraband was made from the appellant in the public place. In this view of the matter, the case in hand fell under Section 43 of the NDPS Act. So far as compliance of Section 50 is concerned, the prosecution proved that PW-5-who was a gazzetted officer, was called and then in his presence the recovery of contraband was made from the appellant. 16) We thus find that the compliance of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
