HAZARI NATH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the judgment dt. 30.06.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Gangapurcity in Sessions Case No. 10/2003 for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act whereby the accused has been convicted and sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, in default of payment of which to further undergo 18 months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts for the disposal of this case are that a complaint was received by the Excise Inspector Shri Madan Lal on 30.05.2002 regarding country made liquor. In pursuance of the information received, the Excise Inspector along with members of the raiding party left for the place to catch hold the person regarding whom information was received. On the way he found a person carrying a bag on his shoulder. He was stopped by the raiding party. The accused disclosed his name as Hazari Nath son of Biram Nath. In the presence of two independent witnesses, namely; PW -2 Yogesh Kumar and PW -3 Rakesh Kumar, search was conducted. From the bag recovered from the accused, 10 Kg. of poppy straw was found. The accused was asked as to whether he was having any valid license to keep the contraband material with him to which he denied. Sample was taken and subsequently sent to the FSL. The statements of independent witnesses were recorded. Information was also sent to the superior officers as per the provisions of Section 57 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, 'NDPS Act'). FIR was registered at the Police Station, after completion of investigation complaint was filed. Ultimately, the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Gangapurcity. The learned trial Judge framed charge under Section 8/15 NDPS Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and tendered nine documents to prove its case. After close of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. No evidence in defence was produced. The learned trial Judge after hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated here -in -above. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contends that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused, therefore, no lenient view is required to be taken.