# Sunil Prajapati v. State

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 98
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-12
- **Case number:** Jail Appeal No. 377 of 2018
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar Ojha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-prajapati-v-state-46438
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Appeal from jail -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 326Ka,
324, 323, 353, 332 & 308 - The Code of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
161,313 - to establish an offence by an
accused motive is not required to be
proved when case is based on eye witness
account - prosecution case cannot be
doubted
on
the
ground
of
non
examination of independent witnesses.
(Para - 18,19)

Appellant came to the office of injured -
poured inflammable substance over his body,
beaten him by brick and iron rod several
times - injured sustained grievous injuries -
head was lacerated at several places -
Appellant
committed
marpit
with
other
employees of the office - acid injury in the
eyes and body of the injured - appellant
obstructed the government work. (Para - 3,
17)

HELD:-Appellant forcibly entered into the
office of complainant and beaten injured and
poured acid over his body without any reason,
the appellant committed marpit with other
employees of the office. It was a government
office where the alleged incident took place,
therefore,
the
appellant
also
created
obstruction in discharging the duties by the
government
employees.
Prosecution
has
established charges under Sections Section
326Ka, 324, 323, 353, 332 & 308 of I.P.C.,
against the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt.(Para - 22,23)

Jail appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

98 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
forthwith unless and until he is wanted in
connection with any other case. The
appellant shall ensure compliance of
Section - 437A Cr.P.C.

35. Let a copy of this judgment/order
be certified to the court concerned for
necessary information and follow up
action.
----------
(2021)10ILR A98
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, J.

Jail Appeal No. 377 of 2018

Sunil Prajapati ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
From Jail, Sri Prashant Vyas, Sri Rajesh
Kumar Dubey

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Appeal from jail -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 326Ka,
324, 323, 353, 332 & 308 - The Code of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
161,313 - to establish an offence by an
accused motive is not required to be
proved when case is based on eye witness
account - prosecution case cannot be
doubted
on
the
ground
of
non
examination of independent witnesses.
(Para - 18,19)

Appellant came to the office of injured -
poured inflammable substance over his body,
beaten him by brick and iron rod several
times - injured sustained grievous injuries -
head was lacerated at several places -
Appellant
committed
marpit
with
other
employees of the office - acid injury in the
eyes and body of the injured - appellant
obstructed the government work. (Para - 3,
17)

HELD:-Appellant forcibly entered into the
office of complainant and beaten injured and
poured acid over his body without any reason,
the appellant committed marpit with other
employees of the office. It was a government
office where the alleged incident took place,
therefore,
the
appellant
also
created
obstruction in discharging the duties by the
government
employees.
Prosecution
has
established charges under Sections Section
326Ka, 324, 323, 353, 332 & 308 of I.P.C.,
against the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt.(Para - 22,23)

Jail appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Thaman Kumar Vs St. of Union Territory of
Chandigarh, 2003 (3) SCR 1190

2. Saddik Vs St. of Guj., (2016) 10 SCC 663

3. Nagaraj Vs St. , (2015) 4 SCC 739

4. Sanaullah Khan Vs St. of Bihar, 2013 (81)
ACC 302 (SC)

5. Subal Ghorai Vs St. of W.B., (2013) 4 SCC
607

6. Deepak Verma Vs St. of H.P., 2012 (76) ACC
794(SC)

7. Sadhu Saran Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
(2016) 4 SCC 357

8. Mukesh Vs St. for NCT of Delhi & ors., AIR
2017 SC 2161

9. Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs St. of Mah.,
(2016) 10 SCC 537

10. Babu Ram Vs St. of U.P., 2002 (2) JIC 649
(SC)

11. Maqbool Vs St. of U.P. & anr., AIR 2018 SC
5101
10 All. Sunil Prajapati Vs. State
99
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha, J.)

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey,
learned counsel for the appellant, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the
records.

2. Challenge in this Jail Appeal is the
judgment and order dated 13.02.2018
passed
by
Additional
Sessions
Judge/Special
Judge,
S.C./S.T.
Act,
Gautam Budh Nagar in S.T. No. 750 of
2014 (State v. Sunil Prajapati) arising out
of Case Crime No. 992 of 2014, under
Section 326Ka, 324, 323, 353, 332 & 308
of I.P.C., P.S. Sector 39 Noida, District
Gautam Budh Nagar whereby the Learned
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge,
S.C./S.T. Act has convicted and sentenced
the appellant under Section 308 I.P.C. four
years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.
2000/- fine in default of payment three
months additional simple imprisonment;
under Section 324 I.P.C. two years of
rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1000/- fine
and in default of fine one month simple
imprisonment; under Section 326A I.P.C.
10 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.
10,000/- fine and in default six months
additional simple imprisonment; under
Section 332 I.P.C. two years rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- and in
default of payment of fine of Rs. 2000/-
one month simple imprisonment; under
Section 353 I.P.C. one year rigorous
imprisonment and Rs. 1000 fine and in
default of payment of fine of Rs. 1000/-
one month additional simple imprisonment.
All the sentences have been ordered to run
concurrently.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the
prosecution case is that the complainant
Anil Kumar Sharma lodged an F.I.R. on
20.09.2014 at 16:30 hours against appellant
Sunil Prajapati at P.S. Sector 39 Noida,
District Gautam Budh Nagar, stating
therein that on 20.09.2014 at 11:00 hours,
appellant Sunil Prajapati came to the office
of the complainant having one plastic jug
filled with inflammable substance and
poured the same on the injured Jitendra
Shandilya and took him out of the office
and assaulted on his head several times by
brick and iron rod. In the incident, injured
Jitendra
Shandilya
sustained
grievous
injuries on his head. After beating the Anil
Kumar,
J.E.
and
Mithun
Operator,
appellant fled from there. The appellant has
obstructed the government work. Jitendra
Shandilya was taken to the Kailash
hospital, Sec-27 where he could not be
treated properly and then he was brought to
Fortis hospital, Sec-62 and was admitted in
I.C.U. ward. He received 22 stitches in his
head and both eyes were injured and burnt
also.

4. On the written report submitted by
Anil Kumar Sharma, S.D.O. Electricity
Office, a case was registered against the
appellant Sunil Prajapati at P.S. Sector 39
Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar in
Case Crime no. 992 of 2014, under Section
326Ka, 324, 323, 353, 332, 308 of I.P.C.,
P.S. Sector 39 Noida, District Gautam
Budh Nagar.

5.

Police
started
investigation,
prepared recovery memo of plastic jug and
inflammable substance lying on the floor
and collected the evidence. Statement of
witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was
recorded.
After
completion
of
investigation, charge sheet was submitted
against the appellant Sunil Prajapati in
Case Crime No. 992 of 2014, under Section
326Ka, 324, 323, 353, 332 of I.P.C., P.S.
Sector 39 Noida, District Gautam Budh
Nagar.
100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. The then Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gautam Budh Nagar, on 26.11.2014
committed the case of appellant to the
Sessions Court for trial. The Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T.
Act on 14.05.2015 charged the appellant
under Sections 323, 324, 326Ka, 308, 353
& 332 of I.P.C. Appellant Sunil Prajapati
denied the charges and claimed trial.

7. Prosecution was called upon to
adduce evidence. Evidence of PW1 Anil
Kumar
Sharma
complainant/informant,
PW2 injured Jitendra Shandilya, PW3 J.E.
Anil Kumar, PW4 Dr. Amit Saxena, PW5
Dr. Surjeet Singh , PW6 S.O. Shiv Prakash
Singh, PW7 Avadhesh Kumar Awasthi,
PW8 Naresh Kumar were recorded.

8. Statement of appellant Sunil
Prajapati was recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C., appellant denied the evidence and
said he has been prosecuted due to enmity.

9. After hearing learned counsel for
the prosecution and defence, the then
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge,
S.C./S.T.
Act,
Gautam
Budh
Nagar
convicted and sentenced the appellant as
above.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that there is no motive to commit
the aforesaid crime, prosecution has not
adduced any independent witness to
substantiate prosecution version, there is no
enmity between the appellant and the
injured Jitendra Shandilya. Evidence of the
prosecution witnesses is unworthy of
credence. It is a case of simple injury.
Further submitted that offence under
Section 326Ka I.P.C. is not made out
against the appellant. There are no criminal
antecedents of the appellant, therefore,
appellant should be acquitted of the charges
leveled against him.

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A.
opposed the above submissions put forward
by learned counsel for the appellant and
contended that the evidence of witnesses of
fact is reliable and trustworthy. There is no
contradiction between ocular testimony and
medical evidence. There is no motive of
false implication. The prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
against the appellant. There is no merit in
the appeal and hence, it should be
dismissed.

12. PW1 Anil Kumar Sharma is
S.D.O. of the Electricity Office situated at
33/11KV, Vidyut Upkhand, Sector-39
Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. He has
supported the prosecution case and has
proved the First Information Report Ex.
Ka-1. In the cross-examination at page no.
21 of the paper book, this witness has
specifically stated that the appellant Sunil
Prajapati committed marpit with injured
Jitendra Shandilya before him in his office.
He saved the injured Jitendra Shandilya
from the clutches of the appellant Sunil
Prajapati, and he did not sustain injury in
the alleged incident. The appellant Sunil
Prajapati committed marpit in the cabin
and on the ground also. At page no. 19 of
the paper book, this witness has deposed
that the appellant Sunil Prajapati beaten the
injured Jitendra by brick and iron rod.

Learned counsel for the appellant
drew the attention of this Court of some
inconsistencies in the statement of PW1
Anil Kumar Sharma, which are of trivial
nature. The alleged incident is said to have
taken place in the office of this witness at
11:00AM in broad day light, during office
10 All. Sunil Prajapati Vs. State
101
hours. Remaining present in the office
during office hours is quite natural.

In view of the above, it is held
that this witness was present in the office at
the time of alleged incident, he witnessed
the incident through his own eyes. The
evidence of PW1 is probable and reliable.

13. PW2 Injured Jitendra Shandilya is
the injured witness. He sustained injuries in
this case. He has stated in his examinationin-chief at page no. 26 of the paper book
that the appellant poured acid over his body
and thereafter beaten him by bricks and
iron rod. In the alleged incident, he
sustained injuries over his head and in his
eyes. Thereafter, threatening to kill this
witness, appellant ran away from there. At
page no. 28 of the paper book in his crossexamination this witness has stated that it is
true that there was no enmity between him
and appellant. On the day of alleged
incident also no altercation took place
between him and appellant. This witness is
the Government servant. He was present in
his office at the time of this incident,
appellant came there, quarreled with him
and beaten him and poured acid over his
body. Remaining present in the office
during office hours is quite natural. The
evidence of PW2 credible and trustworthy.

14. PW3 J.E. Anil Kumar is an
employee of the office where the incident
took place. In the examination-in-chief at
page no. 29 of the paper book, this witness
supporting the prosecution case has stated
that appellant poured acid over Jitendra
Shandilya due to which he started crying,
thereafter the appellant beaten him by
bricks and iron rod. In the incident, the
injured
Jitendra
Shandilya
sustained
injuries over his head and in his eyes. This
witness has further deposed that when he
endeavored to save the injured, appellant
Sunil Prajapati beaten him also by kicks
and fists. In the cross-examination at page
no. 30 of the paper book, this witness has
stated that incident took place in the office
at 11:00 hours. In cross-examination also
nothing prejudicial to prosecution case
could be extracted by the defence. Like
other two witnesses, remaining present
during office hours in the office is natural
conduct of this witness. The evidence of
PW3 is reliable and worthy of credence.

15. PW4 Dr. Amit Saxena has proved
the medical report Ex. Ka-2 of the injured
Jitendra Shandilya. This witness found
following injuries on the person of the
injured:

(1) Lacerated wound on occipital
region of approx 7cm X 0.5cm X 0.5cm;

(2) complaint of burn sensation in
eyes and upper part of body;

(3) Lacerated wound on head of
approx 1cm X 0.5cm X 0.05cm.

This witness has deposed that he
kept the injured under observation. Learned
counsel for the defence cross-examined this
witness extensively, but there is no major
contradiction in the evidence of this
witness.

16. PW5 Dr. Sarjeet Singh Guglani
prepared the discharge card and proved the
same as Ex. K-3. He has also prepared
supplementary report Ex. Ka-9. He has
specifically stated in his evidence at page
no. 36 of the paper book that due to acid
both eyes were injured and there was injury
on his head also. Due to acid there was
burn over face, stomach and legs. There
were sufficient burn in the red side of the
cornea. All the injuries were of grievous
nature. The eyes of the injured can be saved
owing to timely treatment but injuries of
the eyes were grievous in nature.
102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. Prosecution case is that appellant
Sunil Prajapati came to the office of injured
at 11:00AM on 20.09.2014 and poured
inflammable substance over his body,
beaten him by brick and iron rod several
times. In the alleged incident injured
Jitendra
Shandilya
sustained
grievous
injuries. His head was lacerated at several
places. Appellant committed marpit with
other employees of the office. Injured was
taken to hospital for treatment. PW4 Dr.
Amit Saxena & PW5 Dr. Sarjeet Singh
Guglani corroborated the evidence of
injured and eye witnesses. There was acid
injury in the eyes and body of the injured.
There was lacerated wound over the head
of the injured which can be caused by hard
and blunt object like iron rod and bricks.
Thus, there is no contradiction between the
medical and oral evidence. Evidence of
injured is corroborated by the evidence of
eye witnesses and medical evidence.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the appellant has no motive
to cause injuries to the injured Jitendra
Shandilya so case of the prosecution is
doubtful.

I do not agree with the above
contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant because it is settled principal of
law that to establish an offence by an
accused motive is not required to be proved
when case is based on eye witness account.

In Thaman Kumar v. State of
Union Territory of Chandigarh 2003 (3)
SCR 1190, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held as follows:

"There is no such principle or
rule of law that where the prosecution
fails to prove the motive for commission
of the crime, it must necessarily result in
acquittal of the accused. Where the
ocular
evidence
is
found
to
be
trustworthy
and
reliable
and
finds
corroboration from the medical evidence,
a finding of guilt can safely be recorded
even if the motive for the commission of
the crime has not been proved. In State of
Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, [1999]
4 SCC 370 it was held that no doubt it is
a sound principle to remember that every
criminal act was done with a motive but
its corollary is not that no offence was
committed if the prosecution failed to
prove the precise motive of the accused to
commit it, as it is almost an impossibility
for the prosecution to unreveal the full
dimension of the mental disposition of an
offender towards the person whom he
offended. In Nathuni Yadav and Ors. v.
State of Bihar and Anr:, [1998] 9 SCC
238 it was held that motive for doing a
criminal act is generally a difficult area
of prosecution as one cannot normally
see into the mind of another. Motive is
the emotion which impels a man to do a
particular act and such impelling cause
need not necessarily be proportionately
grave to do grave crimes. It was further
held that many a murders have been
committed
without
any
known
or
prominent motive and it is quite possible
that the aforesaid impelling factor would
remain undiscoverable. In our opinion, in
the facts and circumstances of the case,
the absence of any evidence on the point
of motive cannot have any such impact so
as to discard the other reliable evidence
available on record which unerringly
establishes the guilt of the accused."

Following other authorities of the
Hon'ble Apex Court may be also be
referred on the above point.

Saddik v. State of Gujarat,
(2016) 10 SCC 663; Nagaraj v. State,
(2015) 4 SCC 739; Sanaullah Khan v.
State of Bihar, 2013 (81) ACC 302 (SC);
Subal Ghorai v. State of W.B., (2013) 4
10 All. Sunil Prajapati Vs. State
103
SCC 607; Deepak Verma v. State of HP,
2012 (76) ACC 794(SC).

The argument of learned counsel
for the appellant that prosecution has not
proved the motive, hence, prosecution case
is doubtful, is accordingly rejected.

19. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted
that
prosecution
has
not
produced any independent witness in
support of its case, hence, prosecution case
is doubtful, I am unable to agree with the
above contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant. Non examination of the
independent witness is not a ground to
doubt the prosecution case.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that the prosecution case cannot be doubted
on the ground of non examination of
independent witnesses.

In Sadhu Saran Singh v. State
of U.P. & Ors. (2016) 4 SCC 357, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:

"As far as the non-examination of
any
other
independent
witness
is
concerned, there is no doubt that the
prosecution has not been able to produce
any
independent
witness.
But,
the
prosecution case cannot be doubted on this
ground alone. In these days, civilized
people are generally insensitive to come
forward to give any statement in respect of
any
criminal
offence.
Unless
it
is
inevitable, people normally keep away from
the Court as they feel it distressing and
stressful. Though this kind of human
behaviour is indeed unfortunate, but it is a
normal phenomena. We cannot ignore this
handicap of the investigating agency in
discharging their duty. We cannot derail
the entire case on the mere ground of
absence of independent witness as long as
the evidence of the eyewitness, though
interested, is trustworthy".

Following
authorities
of
the
Hon'ble Apex Court may be also be
referred on the above point: Mukesh v.
State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. AIR 2017
SC 2161, Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v.
State of Maharashtra, (2016) 10 SCC 537,
Babu Ram v. State of U.P. 2002 (2) JIC
649 (SC).

20. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that learned trial court
has wrongly convicted the appellant under
Section 326 A IPC. He submitted that in
this case, there is no grievous injury so
appellant could not have been convicted
under Section 326A I.P.C. He placed
reliance on the judgment and order passed
by Hon'ble Apex Court in Maqbool v. State
of U.P. and another AIR 2018 SC 5101,
relevant
para
of
which
is
quoted
hereinbelow:

16. As we have already discussed
above, it is not the percentage or gravity of
injury, which makes the difference. Be it
simple or grievous, if the injury falls under
the specified types under Section 326A on
account of use of acid, the offence under
Section 326A is attracted. Section 326B
could be attracted in case the requirements
specified are met on an attempted acid
attack. Therefore, both the High Court of
Rajasthan in Laddu Ram (supra) and High
Court of Madras in M. Siluvai Murugan @
Murugan (supra)do not lay down the
correct position of law and they are
overruled.

I have gone through the above
paragraph. From the judgment cited by
learned counsel for the appellant, it is clear
that it is not the percentage or gravity of
injury which makes the difference, be it
simple or grievous, if the injury falls under
the specified types under Section 326A on
account of use of acid, the offence 326A
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
I.P.C. is attracted. Section 326B I.P.C. can
be attracted in a case the requirements
specified are met on an attempted acid
attack. Now it would be useful to refer the
provisions of Section 326A of I.P.C. which
is quoted hereinbelow:

"326.
Voluntarily
causing
grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.--Whoever
causes permanent or partial damage or
deformity to, or bums or maims or
disfigures or disables, any part or parts of
the body of a person or causes grievous
hurt
by
throwing
acid1
on
or
by
administering acid to that person, or by
using any other means with the intention of
causing or with the knowledge that he is
likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be
less than ten years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and with fine;

Provided that such fine shall be
just and reasonable to meet the medical
expenses of the treatment of the victim;

Provided further that any fine
imposed under this section shall be paid to
the victim."

From
the
perusal
of
the
aforesaid provision of Section 326A
I.P.C., it is clear that if a person causes
burns by throwing acid, the offence is
covered under Section 326A I.P.C. So far
as the facts of the present case are
concerned,
PW2
injured
Jitendra
Shandilya has specifically stated in his
examination-in-chief at page no. 26 of the
paper book that appellant poured acid
over
the
body of
injured
Jitendra
Shandilya and beaten him by bricks and
iron rod. In the incident, he sutained
injuries over his head, due to acid right
eye of this witness was injured. PW5 Dr.
Sarjeet Singh Guglani has stated in his
examination in chief at page no. 36 of the
paper book that there was acid burn over
the face, stomach and legs of the injured.
The right eye cornea was also burnt. As
per the supplementary report, the injury
of the injured was grievous in nature.
Thus, from the evidence of PW2 Jitendra
Shandilya,
PW5
Dr.
Sarjeet
Singh
Guglani offence under Section 326A
I.P.C. is clearly established.

21.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant further submitted that there was
no enmity between the appellant and the
injured. As there was no enmity between
the appellant and injured, so possibility
of false implication is also ruled out.

22.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant lastly submitted that appellant
is in jail since 21.09.2014 so lenient view
should be taken in the matter.

I am unable to agree with the
above contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant because from the
evidence, it is established that the
appellant forcibly entered into the office
of complainant and beaten Jitendra
Shandilya and poured acid over his body
without
any
reason,
the
appellant
committed marpit with other employees
of the office. It was a government office
where the alleged incident took place,
therefore, the appellant also created
obstruction in discharging the duties by
the government employees.

23. Upshot of the above discussion is
that prosecution has established charges
under Sections Section 326Ka, 324, 323,
353, 332 & 308 of I.P.C., against the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal
lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

24. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed.
10 All. Manoj Kumar Seth Vs. State of U.P.
105

25. Copy of this judgment be certified
to the court below for compliance. Lower
court record be transmitted to the District
Court, concerned.
----------
(2021)10ILR A105
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 901 of 2017

Manoj Kumar Seth ...Appellant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Dinesh Mishra, Sri Satish Sharma, Sri
Ravish Kumar Mal

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

(A)
Criminal
law
-
appeal
against
conviction - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 - Section 8/21,
section 42 - power of entry , search ,
seizure and arrest without warrant or
authorisation , Section 50 - conditions
under which search of persons shall be
conducted - provision of Section 50 of the
Act stands attracted in case of personal
search and not in the case where the
search was given effect otherwise than
from the personal search of the accused.
(Para - 7,8)

Contraband (Heroin) recovered from a bag - in
day time at 2:50 p.m. - at a crowded place -
attached to the motor-cycle - on which the
accused - appellant was riding - trial court held -
compliance of section 50 not mandatory -
conviction - hence appeal.

HELD:- Section 50 of the Act patently has no
application in this case because the recovery of
Heroin was not from the person of the
appellant, but from the bag attached to the
motor-cycle. Trial Court rightly held in the
impugned judgment that Section 50 of the Act,
is not at all applicable in the present case.
Appellant has been rightly convicted and
sentenced by learned trial court.(Para - 8,9,15 )

Criminal Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of Punjab Vs Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC
1721

2. Madan Lal & anr. Vs St. of H.P,, 2003 (47)
ACC 763

3. Megh Singh Vs St. of Punj., 2003 Cr.LJ 4329

4. St. of H.P. Vs Pawan Kumar, 2005 (52) ACC
710

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred by
the appellant against the judgment and
order dated 4.11.2016, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in
Special Trial No.121 of 2009 (State vs.
Manoj Kumar) arose out of Case Crime
No.23 of 2009, under Section 8/21 Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (herein after referred to as 'the Act,
1985'), Police Station-Mutthiganj, DistrictPrayagraj,
by
which
appellant
was
convicted
for
15
years
rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
(one lakh).

2. The relevant facts necessary for
disposal of this appeal are as under:

(i) On 30.01.2009, Dhananjay
Mishra,
Sub-Inspector,
In-charge-SOG
along with other police-personnel reached
at Kotha-Parcha near Dot-ka-pul within
area of P.S.-Mutthiganj, where SHO, P.S.-