2016 (6) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lac) and in default of payment of fine both the Appellants shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year by the judgment of conviction dated 29th May, 2013, and order of sentence dated 13th June, 2013, passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act, East Champaran at Motihari, in NDPS Case No.81 of 2008. 2. The case of the Complainant/Informant, A.M.F.Azam, (PW 4) is that on 13.08.2008 while he was posted as Inspector of Customs (P) Circle Sugauli, he received secret information that a truck would be passing on that way with Ganja loaded on it. He then constituted a raiding team and inspected the truck and from....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7. PW 3 (Ram Babu Singh) another member of the Raiding Team supported the factum of recovery. In cross-examination, he stated that when packets were recovered, they were opened to see as to what was inside and thereafter once again bound with rope. Five to ten packets were opened and all of them were numbered as 1, 2, 3,.... This was done by the team leader, whereas, they were watching. 8. PW 4 (A.M.F. Azam) is the Informant/Complainant, who reiterated the statement given in the fard-e-bayan that on secret information a truck was intercepted and behind the driver seat a secret chamber was found from which 990 Kg. Ganja was found and recovered in separate bags. Same was seized and Panchnama was prepared. He proved the seizure list....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....neration. 12. PW 8 (Indrajeet Pd. Singh) is also a member of the Raiding Team, who supported the statement given by rest of the members of the Raiding Team. In cross-examination, he stated that when he reached there, seizure list was being prepared and interrogation being conducted. 13. Thus, we find that apart from PW 1 and PW 4 none of the witnesses have stated about the manner in which sample was drawn. Whereas PW 1 says that samples were drawn from the two packets i.e. top and bottom one, PW 4 generally says that samples were drawn from 3-4 packets. The fact remains that only one sample was sent for testing which tested positive. PW 1 deposed that all the bags were of different sizes and only one sample was sent to the Forensic Sc....