Punjab-Haryana High Court
Peter O. Ediae vs U.T. Chandigarh And Another on 18 April, 2011
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jora Singh
CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-257-SB of 2008
Date of decision: 18.4.2011
Peter O. Ediae
........ Appellant
Versus
U.T. Chandigarh and another
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
PRESENT: Ms. Monica Jalota, Advocate, Amicus Curiae,
for the appellant.
Mr. Sukant Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor,
for U.T. Chandigarh.
Mr. Rajive Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
JORA SINGH, J.
Peter O. Ediae, preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.1.2008, rendered by the Judge, Special Court, Chandigarh, in NDPS Case No. 175 of 5.12.2007/4.3.2005, arising out of complaint filed by The Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh (in short 'NCB') under Sections 8, 20 and 61 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act').
By the said judgment he was convicted under Sections 20 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of ` 5 lacs and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -2-
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 6.9.2004 at about 2000 hours (8.00 p.m.) complainant P.K. Sharma, Intelligence Officer, NCB, Chandigarh, had boarded bus No. HP-01-1641, from Kullu to Chandigarh and was occupying seat No. 22. Bus was about to reach Chandigarh then he suspected that one Nigerian citizen who was sitting on seat No. 21 might be carrying some contraband. Then he contacted the driver and conductor of the bus and informed them about his suspicion. At about 4.00 p.m. on 7.9.2004, bus reached at its destination at Sector-22, Chandigarh, then the passengers started alighting from the bus. When passenger sitting at seat No. 21 after alighting from the bus started collecting his luggage from the luggage compartment of the bus then P.K. Sharma, in the presence of witnesses had intercepted him. He had disclosed his identity to the said passenger and asked about his identity then passenger of seat No. 21 disclosed his name as Peter O. Ediae, resident of 54 E Sigie Street, Banin City, Nigeria. Mr. P.K. Sharma, told him that he wanted to search his luggage then Mr. Peter O. Ediae became furious and shouted that he does not believe him (Mr. P.K. Sharma) to be an Intelligence Officer because he was in civil dress and insisted to summon the police then Mr. P.K. Sharma, Intelligence Officer, immediately contacted the local police on telephone. In the meantime, ASI Raj Masih, came at the spot.
After some time, vehicle of Police Control Room along with HC Harish Kumar, Constable Bachan Singh and one driver of Chandigarh Police, came at the spot. Team of NCB, Chandigarh, consisting of Sh. OP Sharma, Superintendent, Ravi Kant Pawar, Balwinder Kumar, Intelligence Officers, Gurdev Singh Driver and Rajesh Kumar Sepoy, reached at the spot. Mr. P.K. Sharma, informed the CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -3- accused that he was in suspicion that he (accused) was carrying some narcotic drugs on his person or luggage and he wanted to search his person and luggage. Notice under Section 50 of the Act issued to the accused informing him that he has the legal right to get himself searched before any Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer then reply of the accused was that he was willing to get himself searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Accused was informed that Sh. O.P. Sharma, Superintendent of NCB, Chandigarh, present at the spot is a Gazetted Officer. Sh. O.P Sharma, Superintendent, disclosed his identity and again offer was given to the accused and informed him that he has the legal right to be searched before any Magistrate or some other Gazetted Officer. Then accused agreed to be searched in his (Sh. O.P. Sharma) presence. Accused was informed that before his personal search or bag by NCB team, he (accused) can search P.K. Sharma, Intelligence Officer, NCB, Chandigarh and also the persons of the witnesses but accused replied that he has faith in the team then P.K. Sharma, Intelligence Officer, NCB Chandigarh, got himself searched from Dinesh Kumar, before search of accused, as per instructions of O.P. Sharma, Superintendent, NCB Chandigarh. In the presence of O.P. Sharma and other witnesses accused was searched by P.K. Sharma and on search of the accused one ticket was recovered. On search of red and blue coloured strolly bag after the lock of the same was opened by the accused a slab which was rectangular in shape covered with khaki packing tapes was recovered. Smell like charas was coming from inside and on enquiry accused replied that packet contains charas. After recovery of charas from the possession of the accused the team of NCB and Chandigarh Police, along with witnesses had CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -4- gone to the office of NCB Chandigarh, for further proceedings to avoid any mishap as the people started collecting at the spot. On reaching office, Balwinder Kumar, Intelligence Officer, took out small quantity of substance from the recovered parcel and tested the said substance by using Drug Detection Kit and the same was found to be of charas/Hashish. Recovered charas/Hashish on weighment was found to be 2 kg 600 grams. Two samples each weighing 25 grams were drawn and were made into separate sealed parcels, sealed with the seal of "NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREA-06". Remaining charas was also made into sealed parcels sealed with the seal impression "NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREA-06". Case property was taken into possession vide memo attested by the witnesses. Red and blue bag was also made into separate sealed parcel and was taken into possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Panchnama was prepared and the same was read over and explained to the accused who signed the same in token of its correctness. Copy of Panchanama was supplied to the accused. Seal impression of the seal used was also prepared separately and after its use, the same was handed over to Sh. O.P. Sharma, Superintendent, NCB Chandigarh. Sh. P.K. Sharma, Intelligence Officer, NCB, recorded the statement of the accused under Section 67 of the Act. Statement was read over and explained to the accused who signed the same in token of its correctness. Accused was arrested. Grounds of arrest were brought to the notice of the accused. Intimation regarding arrest of accused was given to his family through wireless message to SHO, Police Station Sector-17, Chandigarh and the High Commission of Nigeria, New Delhi and other concerned agencies. Personal search of the accused was CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -5- also conducted. Memo was prepared. Accused was produced in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, on 8.9.2004, along with the case property. On 9.9.2004, one representative sample A-1 was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner, Central Revenue Chemical Laboratory, Chandigarh and as per report of the laboratory contents of the sample were found to be of charas. After completion of investigation, complaint was presented in Court.
Charge-sheet under Section 20 of the Act was prepared, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case the complainant NCB examined 5 witnesses.
PW-1 Balwant Rai, stated that on 8.9.2004, one sample parcel was handed over to him by O.P. Sharma, Superintendent, NCB Chandigarh and the same was deposited with CRCL, New Delhi, on 9.9.2004.
PW-2 Dr. MD Mohdal, Chemical Examiner, Grade-II, CRCL New Delhi, stated that one sample parcel along with two test memos and forwarding letter was received from NCB, Chandigarh. Sample was tested by Central Revenues Control Laboratory, New Delhi and contents of the samples were found to be of charas.
PW-3 Sunil Kumar, is the driver of the bus and supported the prosecution story by saying that on 6.9.2004, at 6.00 p.m. they had started from Manali to Chandigarh, on bus bearing registration No. HP- 01-1641. Number of passengers were in the bus. On 7.9.2004 at about 4.15 a.m. when they reached about near Chandigarh then one passenger sitting on seat No. 22 approached him and introduced himself as Intelligence Officer of NCB, Chandigarh. He had showed his CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -6- identity card and informed him that he has suspicion on one passenger sitting on seat No. 21 and he intended to search that passenger and his luggage. He was requested to remain present during the proceedings. On reaching bus stand at Sector-22, Chandigarh, Mr. P.K. Sharma, requested him to remain with him. Passenger who was sitting on seat No. 21, after alighting from the bus had collected his luggage but he was stopped by Mr. P.K. Sharma, Intelligence Officer, NCB, Chandigarh. Mr. Sharma, told the passenger that he suspected that he was carrying some narcotics with him and he wanted to search him. He had shown is identity card but the passenger was saying that P.K. Sharma, was not in uniform, so, he wanted police to be there. Police was summoned at the spot.
On enquiry, passenger disclosed his name as Peter O. Ediae, resident of 54 E Sigie Street, Banin City, Nigeria. In the meantime, team of NCB, Chandigarh, headed by Sh. O.P. Sharma, Superintendent, NCB, Chandigarh, came at the spot. Offer was given to the accused as to whether he wanted to be searched before any Gazetted Officer or any Magistrate. Notice Ex. PD, was issued to him to join the investigation. Accused replied to be searched before the Gazetted Officer. Mr.O.P. Sharma, Superintendent of NCB, Chandigarh, had disclosed his identity to the accused that he is a Gazetted Officer of NCB, Chandigarh. Again offer was given to the accused as to whether he wanted to be searched before any Magistrate or some other Gazetted Officer but accused had reposed confidence in Sh. OP Sharma, Superintendent, NCB, Chandigarh, for his search and search of his bag. On search of the bag, a slab which was rectangular in shape covered with khaki packing tapes was recovered. Smell like CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -7- charas was coming from inside and on enquiry accused replied that packet contains charas. On weighment charas was found to be 2 Kg 600 grams. Two samples each weighing 25 grams were separated to serve as sample. Samples and the remaining charas were separately sealed with seal of the NCB bearing impression "NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREA-06". Case property was taken into possession vide memo attested by him and other witnesses. Panchnama was also prepared which was signed by the accused in token of its correctness. Notice Ex. PH, was also issued to the accused to explain his position then accused made his statement Ex. PI, which was signed by him and other witnesses. Personal search memo of the accused Ex. PK was also signed by him and other witnesses.
PW-4 P.K. Sharma, is the Investigating Officer.
PW-5 O. P. Sharma, is the witness of recovery and has supported the version of P.K. Sharma, Investigating Officer.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of the accused was that he was falsely implicated in this case. No recovery was effected from him. The strolly bag from which the alleged recovery is shown to have been effected does not belongs to him. He was arrested by NCB official when he had alighted from the bus. He was taken to the office of NCB, Chandigarh. All the documents were prepared there. Present case was planted simply to show detection of the contraband to the superior officers. No notice was served upon him nor he made any statement before the Officers of NCB.
CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -8-
In defence, appellant appeared as his own witness and stated that no recovery was effected from him. Case is false.
DW-2 Constable Hardeep Singh, brought the summoned record and stated that accused was brought to jail on 10.9.2004.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the complainant NCB, learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence available on the file, appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and carefully gone through the evidence available on the file.
Learned defence counsel for the appellant argued that on 6.9.2004 at about 8.00 p.m. bus No. HP-01-1641, was boarded by P.K. Sharma, Intelligence Officer, NCB, Chandigarh. He was occupying seat No. 22. Appellant was also in the same bus and was occupying seat No. 21 but no evidence on the file how Intelligence Officer, became suspicious that appellant was carrying some narcotic. Number of passengers were in the bus but no one was requested to join investigation. Seal after its use was not handed over to the independent witness. According to the story, 2 samples each weighing 25 grams were separated but as per report of the laboratory weight of the sample was 24.4 grams. CFSL, form was not prepared at the spot. Recovery was on 7.9.2004, whereas sample parcels were deposited in the laboratory on 9.9.2004. There is delay in depositing the sample parcel in the laboratory. Statement of the appellant recorded by the Investigating Officer, is not admissible. No recovery was effected from the appellant. Recovery was planted simply to show recovery of charas CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -9- to the Higher Officers.
Learned State counsel argued that on 6.9.2004, appellant and the Investigating Officer, were travelling in bus No. HP-01-1641, while coming from Kullu to Chandigarh. On the way, Investigating Officer, suspected that the appellant is carrying some contraband. Matter was brought to the notice of the driver and conductor. They were requested to join the party. When the bus had reached at bus stand Sector-22, Chandigarh, then appellant after alighting from the bus had collected strolly bag. Appellant was apprehended. Offer was given to the appellant as to whether he wanted to be searched before any Gazetted Officer or any Magistrate. Gazetted Officer, was requested to reach at the spot. Gazetted Officer, also gave offer under Section 50 of the Act. In the presence of Gazetted Officer, appellant was searched and on search of strolly bag a slab which was rectangular in shape covered with khaki packing tapes was recovered. Smell like charas was coming from inside and on enquiry accused replied that packet contains charas. Appellant was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh but no complaint to the Magistrate that he had a fight with the Investigating Officer. Accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. then did not state a word that he had a fight with the Investigating Officer. After arrest of the appellant, intimation was given to his family through wireless message to SHO, Police Station Sector- 17, Chandigarh and the High Commission of Nigeria, New Delhi and other concerned agencies. Independent witness was also joined. Story is not to be ignored if seal after its use was not handed over the independent witness. Independent witness i.e. the driver of the bus had no enmity with the appellant and while appearing as PW-3 then CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -10- supported the prosecution story. Statement of the appellant made voluntarily under Section 67 of the Act is admissible. Appellant is Nigerian. If we presume that there was some altercation with the Investigating Officer, then Investigating Officer, was not expected to plant heavy recovery. If appellant was to be implicated then 5 or 10 grams of charas could be planted.
First submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellant was that appellant along with the Investigating Officer, on bus No. HP-01-1641, was coming to Chandigarh from Kullu and on the way Investigating Officer, suspected that the appellant is carrying some narcotic but no cogent and convincing evidence on the file as to how appellant was carrying with him some narcotic. In fact the appellant had altercation with the Investigating Officer. Appellant was falsely implicated. Signatures of the appellant on different documents were obtained while in custody under pressure but after going through the evidence on file, I am not in a position to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.
Evidence shows that on 6.9.2004, appellant had boarded bus No. HP-01-1641, from Kullu to Chandigarh. Investigating Officer, had gone to Kullu to appear in different cases. Appellant was also in the same bus and was occupying seat No. 21. Seat No. 22 was occupied by the Investigating Officer. While coming to Chandigarh, Investigating Officer suspected the appellant to be carrying some narcotic then Investigating Officer, brought this fact to the notice of the driver and conductor. They were requested to remain with the party. Notice was issued to the driver and conductor to join the party. At Sector-22, Chandigarh, Investigating Officer had alighted from the bus. CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -11- Appellant after alighting from the bus had collected strolly bag from the back of the bus then appellant was apprehended. Offer under Section 50 of the Act was given to the appellant as to whether he wanted to be searched before any Gazetted Officer or any Magistrate. Recovery is from the bag and not from the person of the appellant. Section 50 of the Act, is not applicable but keeping in view punishment under the Act, offer was given under Section 50 of the Act. After apprehension of the appellant, message was sent to the team of NCB, Chandigarh, to visit the spot. Sh. O.P. Sharma, Superintendent, NCB, Chandigarh, along with the officials came at the spot. He had disclosed his identity to the appellant as Gazetted Officer. Offer was again given to the appellant as to whether he wanted to be searched before some other Gazetted Officer or any Magistrate but the appellant had reposed confidence in the Gazetted Officer i.e. Sh. O.P. Sharma, Superintendent, NCB, Chandigarh. Bag carried by the appellant was searched and on search of the bag the same was found containing charas. Small part of the contraband was tested with the Drug Detection Kit and the same was found to be of charas/Hashish. Recovered charas/Hashish on weighment was found to be 2 kg 600 grams. Two samples each weighing 25 grams and the remaining charas were separately sealed by the Investigating Officer with the seal of NCB bearing impression "NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREA-06". Seal impression of the seal used was also prepared separately. Investigating Officer was travelling in the same bus with the appellant. Seat of the Investigating Officer, was adjoining to the seat of the appellant. Investigating Officer, was in civil dress. From the actions of the appellant, Investigating Officer, suspected that the appellant is carrying some narcotic. Suspicion arose CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -12- in the mind of the Investigating Officer, from the actions of the appellant. If Investigating Officer, failed to explain as to how he suspected that the appellant is carrying narcotic then on this short ground story is not to be ignored.
When Investigating Officer, suspected the appellant to be carrying some narcotic then information was given to the driver and conductor to remain with the party. After apprehension of the appellant notice was issued to the driver and conductor to remain with the party. Driver appeared as PW-3 and supported the prosecution story as to how recovery was effected. No doubt, number of passengers were in the bus but no request to any of the passenger when already driver and the conductor were requested to join the party. Driver and the conductor had no enmity with the appellant. When driver was joined by the Investigating officer then story is not to be ignored if any of the passenger was not requested to join the investigation. When number of independent witnesses were present then all are not to be requested to join the party only. 1 or 2 persons are to be requested to join the party. In the present case, driver and conductor were with the party. Suppose independent witness available at the spot is not joined then story is not to be ignored. Common experience shows that whenever there is a request to join the party then no body agrees to join the party and if someone agreed then failed to appear in Court and if appeared in Court then rarely supported the prosecution story.
In 2009 (4) RAJ 330, "Balbir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab",Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that independent witness present but won over and appeared in defence then it will be said that CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -13- search and recovery are in any manner vitiated but in the present case independent witness i.e. the driver of the bus appeared as PW-3 and supported the prosecution story. He was not inimical towards the appellant, so, no reason to disbelieve Sunil Kumar, Driver of the bus.
Next submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellant was that independent witness was with the party but seal was not handed over to the independent witness but story is not to be ignored if seal after its use was not handed over to the independent witness because after recovery on 7.9.2004, appellant along with the case property was produced in Court. Seals were found intact. On 8.9.2004, sample parcel was handed over to PW-1 Balwant Rai, for depositing the same in the laboratory. On 9.9.2004, sample parcel was deposited in the laboratory. As per report of the laboratory, seals were found intact and found tallied with the seal impression. In Balbir Kaur (supra) there was delay of 4 days in sending the samples to the office of the Chemical Examiner, then held that delay is not fatal. After recovery from the appellant, intimation was given to the concerned SHO and Embassy of Nigeria. When appellant produced before the Court then no complaint that he had a fight with the Investigating Officer and due to this reason he was implicated. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 67 of the Act and he had signed the same in token of its correctness. After recovery when the appellant was produced before the Court then no complaint to the Magistrate that his signatures were obtained under pressure or by giving beatings.
In 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal) 160 (SC), "M. Prabhulal Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence", recovery of CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -14- 66 kgs of heroin by officers of Revenue Intelligence Department. No independent witness was examined then Hon'ble Supreme Court held that confessional statement of accused was found to be voluntary. Conviction was upheld. Confessional statement was recorded after one day but no allegation of torture. Relevant para Nos. 4 and 6 are reproduced as under:
"4. Assailing, therefore, the statements made by each of the appellant under Section 67, it was vehemently contended by Mr. R.K. Jain, Senior Advocate that the statements on basis whereof the appellants have been found guilty are not voluntary and thus their conviction cannot be sustained. The statements of the appellants have been recorded by officers of Department of Revenue Intelligence who are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The confessional statements recorded by such officers are admissible in evidence. Learned counsel though not questioning the admissibility of the said statements contends that the same were obtained by torture and harassment and are involuntary and, therefore, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. The delay in recording of the statements of the appellants is put forth as one of the reasons to support the contention that the statements were involuntary. Learned counsel submits that after apprehending truck and the care on the road at about noon time on 15th May, CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -15- 1993, the seizure of the narcotics had taken place between 6 to 9 p.m. at the Customs-House and the statements of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 were recorded on the next day i.e. on 16th May, 1993 and the statement of accused No. 1 was recorded on 17th May, 1993. It may be noted that accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 were apprehended on the spot on 15th May, 1993 whereas accused no.1 was arrested on 16th May, 1993. The Courts below on appreciation of evidence have neither doubted the recovery nor has found the statements to be involuntary.
6. Next, learned counsel contends that the independent witnesses of the recovery of the contraband have not been examined and only police witnesses have been examined, the recover becomes doubtful. Reliance is place upon the decision in Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar and others v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 (3) RCR (Criminal) 692 (SC): (1995) 4 SCC 255. In the decision relied upon while observing that prudence dictates that evidence of police witnesses need to be subjected to strict scrutiny, it was also observed that their evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to police force and are either interested in the investigating or prosecuting agency, but as far as possible, corroboration of their evidence CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -16- in material particulars should be sought. In that case the observations were made in the light of the fact that the police officials made an attempt to create an impression on the Court that the two witnesses were witnesses of locality and were independent, knowing fully well that one of the witnesses was under the influence of the police and available to police as he had been joining the raids earlier also and other witness was a close associate of the said already available witness. The friendship between the two witnesses developed during the days of gambling with the police having admittedly conducted a raid at their den. It was observed that the very fact that the police officer joined the said two witnesses creates a doubt about the fairness of investigation coupled with the manner in which the statements had been recorded in that case. The observations relied upon have no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case particularly having regard to the confessional statements of the appellants which he have held were voluntary. On the facts of the case, recovery cannot be doubted for want of non- examination of independent witnesses."
Next submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellant was that two samples each weighing 25 grams were separated whereas as per report of the laboratory weight of the sample was 24.4 grams, I agree that there is some discrepancy but story is not CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -17- to be ignored because after recovery two samples each weighing 25 grams were separated with the help of traditional scale. Same scale was not used to weigh the sample in the laboratory. While separating samples with the weighing scale or spring balance there is possibility of some variation while weighing the material. Something could be said if same weighing scale would have used by the Investigating Officer while separating the samples at the time of recovery and by the laboratory at the time of examination.
Next submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellant was that appellant while travelling in bus No. HP-01-1641 had a dispute with the Investigating Officer. Investigating Officer, had some altercation. Appellant was brought to NCB Office, Chandigarh, where signatures of the appellant were obtained forcibly but submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellant seems to be not correct one. After recovery on 7.9.2004, appellant along with the case property was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. Before CJM, Chandigarh, no complaint by the appellant that he had some altercation with the Investigating Officer or his signatures were obtained forcibly. If the appellant was to be implicated falsely then there was no reason to send intimation to the Embassy of Nigeria and incharge of the concerned Police Station. No suggestion to the witnesses that while travelling in bus No. HP-01-1641, appellant had some altercation with the Investigating Officer and to raise figure work, appellant was falsely implicated. Appellant instead of raising or lodging any protest at any stage rather made statement voluntarily under Section 67 of the Act. Statement of the appellant coupled with the statements of the Investigating Officer, Gazetted Officer and driver of the bus as CRA-S-257-SB of 2008 -18- independent witness leads to this conclusion that recovery of 2 Kg 600 grams of charas is genuine. Minor discrepancies in the statements of PWs. Discrepancies occurred with the passage of time rather shows that story is genuine one. In case there was no discrepancy then witnesses are criticized as tutored one. Earlier to the recovery, officials of NCB, Chandigarh, had no enmity with the appellant. Number of passengers were present in the bus. There was no reason to choose the appellant.
Appellant is the citizen of Nigeria. Recovery is of 2 Kg 600 grams of charas worth crores in the market. Ulterior motive of the appellant was to earn money through illegal means and destroy the youth by distributing charas. By consuming narcotics young boys and girls are becoming addicts. Government is spending huge amount to save the youth by opening de-addiction centers. Keeping in view the quantity of charas recovered, trial Court rightly opined to deposit fine of ` 5 lacs.
In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the same is upheld on the point of conviction.
For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merits is dismissed.
April 18, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE