DEVILAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED/appellant Devilal is convicted under Sections 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to 10 years RI with fine Rs. 1,00,000/- by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Neemuch vide his judgment dated 7-10-96 in Special Case No. 139/93 which is impugned in this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, was that on 1-4-1993 at 11. 30 p. m. in the night, Sub-Inspector Anilsingh Rathore (P. W. 8) of P. S. Singoli, acting on the basis of information received from an approver intercepted the accused appellant on way near Village Thadod-Phata and after observing necessary formalities/requirements, searched him in presence of two panch-witnesses. Two bags, tied around the waist underneath wearing apparels, were recovered from the person of the accused. On preliminary examination both the said bags were found containing opium weighing 870 and 660 gms. , respectively. Two samples each of 30 gms. were drawn from the said bags which were then sealed and seized duly on the spot. On return at the police station, FIR vide Ex. P-15 was lodged and scribed by Sub-Inspector Rathore himself who also proceeded with further investigation in the case. On chemical analysis the seized contraband was found to be opium. After other necessary investigation, accused appellant was charge-sheeted and committed for trial which ended into his conviction and sentence as aforesaid.

(3.) THE prosecution examined Bothelal (P. W. 6), Panch-witness of the said seizure, and A. S. I. Bhajendrasingh Chouhan (P. W. 7) besides Sub-Inspector Anilsingh Rathore (P. W. 8) who all have narrated the prosecution story already stated hereinbefore. Their evidence is, however, criticised severely by learned counsel for appellant and it was contended that their evidence inspired little or no confidence. It was vehemently contended that mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act was not complied with inasmuch as there is no reference of it in the seizure memo and the FIR. It was further pointed out that the police had used partisan witnesses to witness the search inasmuch as Bothelal (P. W. 6) was having litigation with the accused appellant at the relevant time. It was, thus, a case of false implication, submitted the counsel.