2000 (11) TMI 1204

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... convicted for an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act"). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years besides paying a fine of Rs.1 lakh. Appeal filed against the judgment of the trial court was dismissed by the High Court vide the judgment impugned in this appeal. According to the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd sentenced as noticed earlier. Witnesses Raju Khanna and Arjun Kumar have admittedly not supported the prosecution story. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that as both the witnesses who were stated to be independent witnesses have turned hostile, the trial court should have acquitted the accused. We are not impressed with such a general submission. In order to satisfy oursel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant. His signatures were also obtained on some papers at the instance of police. The appellant was never interrogated or searched in his presence. Jitender Singh (PW3) Head Constable of Police is stated to have received on 20th May, 1997 a sealed packet allegedly containing brown sugar for keeping in safe custody. He made entry of deposit of the material in the Confiscation Register and issued r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. In all material particulars PW4 stands contradicted by PWs 1 and 2 who are admittedly the panch witnesses. The prosecution also failed to associate three constables who accompanied S.N. Tripathi (PW4) as the witnesses. The trial court appears to have omitted to note the glaring contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. ....