LAWS(MPH)-2009-2-118

RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On February 24, 2009
RAM SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by judgment dated 05.03.2008 rendered by Special Judge (NDPS) Neemuch in ST No. 02/06 whereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8/15(c)/29 of the Narcotics Drugs Psychotropic and Substances Act (for short "the Act") and sentencing him to undergo RI for a period of 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ - in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for one year, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) IN short case of the prosecution was that the appellant along with other co -accused Udayram @ Bherulal, Mohandas and Prabhuram were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 -C of the Act alleging that on 17.09.2005 at about 9.45 pm appellant was found in possession of 512 Kgs poppy straw which the appellant was carrying in a truck bearing registration No. RJ -22/G -0039 for which the appellant was having no valid licence. Challan was filed and after framing of charge, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 8/15 -C(29) of the Act and sentenced as stated above. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that appellant was convicted illegally while appellant has not committed any offence. Learned counsel submits that the learned Courts below committed error in not properly appreciating the evidence which resulted incorrect judgment and is liable to be set aside in this appeal. It is submitted that total quantity of poppy straw was 512 Kgs contained in 16 bags. It is submitted that alleged contraband was never produced before learned trial Court during trial. It is submitted that even samples of the contraband were not produced. It is submitted that the learned Court below committed error in not considering that material omissions and contradictions appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside.