TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 949
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sections 8 and 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'). 3. On 4th March 2016, PW-5, Sub-Inspector Bhawna Tiwari, who was posted at the relevant time in Hanumantal Police Station, Jabalpur, received an information that some persons, including three men and two women, were carrying Ganja in a WagonR car and were trying to sell the contraband. Accordingly, necessary preparation was made by PW-5. When PW-5 and her team reached Footalal Ground, Hanumanatal, they found that three men and two women were sitting in a WagonR. The women were Seema and Preeti. On search, bags containing Ganja, totally weighing 38.200 kgs. were seized. Samples were drawn, and further procedure was followed. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of the appellant that she is not the accused and that one Seema Choudhari was the real accused cannot be discarded. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that Seema Choudhari and the present appellant are one and the same, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the State invited our attention to statements recorded by the police and findings in the order dated 6th September 2016. He submitted that the findings are based on documents such as the Aadhar card. He submitted that the said order was not challenged by the appellant and hence, has become final. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 7. The burden was on the prosecution to prove that the pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Seema Choudhari; d. In the arrest memo, the name of the accused is shown as Seema Choudhari; e. The arrest memo records her age as 17 years. Therefore, she was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Jabalpur. By a communication dated 14th March 2016, the Juvenile Justice Board informed the Superintendent of the Children's Home that the age of Seema Choudhari appears to be more than 18 years; f. In the remand report, the name of Seema Choudhari appears; and g. In none of the documents, produced along with the charge sheet, K. Shikha Barman was mentioned as an accused; 9. Now, we turn to the evidence of PW-5. The evidence of PW-5 reveals the following factual aspects : a. On 4th March 2016,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppu Chakrawarti, Preeti Choudhary, Seema Choudhary were reported to be sitting. It is correct that information about Shikha Barman' presence was not recorded in the Roznamcha Sanha. 50. It is correct that after reaching to the spot of incident and while preparing the Search Panchnama Ex.P- 4, no woman named Shikha Barman was found in the vehicle. I am not aware that consent of a minor is not taken. It is incorrect to say that age of Pappu Chakrawarti at the time of incident was 15 years it is correct that signature of Shikha Barman is not present on any Panchnama prepared on the spot. Thumb impression which is on the consent Panchnama and other Panchnama is not of Shikha Barman. It is correct on the front page of Ex.P- 4,5,7,8,....