TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to pay fine of `10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The facts as enumerated from the record are that on 02.09.2011 at about 5.00 PM, ASI Baldev Singh along with fellow officials was on patrolling duty near the bridge of small canal in the area of village Ajnali. The accused was seen coming on foot from the side of GT road, Bus Stand Ajnali. He was carrying a plastic bag in his hand but on seeing the police party at once he tried to turn back. On the basis of suspicion, he was apprehended by ASI Baldev Singh with the help of fellow officials. Upon inquiry the accused disclosed his name and whereabouts. ASI Baldev Singh disclosed his identity to the accused and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd closed the evidence. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him to which he denied and pleaded false implication. The accused was called upon to lead defence evidence but he has not examined even a single witness in his defence. The learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, convicted the accused under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment and fine, as narrated above. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.09.2014, the accused has preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no independent witness has been joined in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ASI Baldev Singh (Investigating Officer) regarding weighing and scale of the contraband. It is submitted that PW-2 HC Jiwan Singh during his examination in the trial court has deposed that the weighing scale was with the Investigating Officer whereas PW-3 ASI Baldev Singh has deposed that the same was procured from the nearby shop. I have consideration the said submission but do not find any force in the same. In this case recovery was effected on 02.09.2011 but the witnesses were examined on 01.05.2012 and 30.11.2012 respectively. So due to lapse of memory, the above said discrepancies have occurred. The said discrepancy is not such which goes to the root of the case. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in case....