Fakhruddin J. - (1.)- The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 30-6-1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 459/94 by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge. Ujjain against acquittal of the respondent under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (hereinafter referred to NDPS Act).
(2.)The brief facts of the case as found by the Trial Court are that: on 7-10-1994. Shri N.S. Chandrawat, Station House Officer. Central Police Station Kotwali. Ujjain received information through an informant that one person is going from Nazar Ali bus-stand to Kanthal area alongwith TCharas. The information was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha, and was sent to Shri K.B. Bundela, C.S.P. in writing. It is alleged that pursuant to this when police party reached near Mankamneshwar Mandir, they found a person alongwith attache there. At that time C.S.P. Bundelaalso reached there. The person was stopped and asked for his search. He was told that he could get himself searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The prosecution alleges that Ram Kumar contended that he preferred to be searched by C.S.P. Panchanama Ex. P 12 was prepared. He was found to be carrying 800 gms. article like that of Charas. It was seized. The search taken vide seizure memo Ex. P-8 and. Ex. P-7. 50 gm. 50 gm. samples of the article seized was taken out which was sent to the Public Analyst for testing vide Ex. P20 to Indore, and its report is Ex. P 19. 3. After investigation Challan was filed before the Sessions Judge and thereafter, it was transferred to the special Judge, i.e. sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain who tried the case.
(3.)On 6-1-1995, charge under Section 8 read with Section 20 (b)(ii) of the NDPS Act was framed against the accused/ respondent. Respondent denied the guilt and contended that he has been falsely implicated because of the complaint made by him to the various authorities against Vinita Sharma daughter of Deputy Superintendent of Police Pyarelal Vashishta who was running a gas agency. The respondent contended that he is a social and political worker, and is a President of TGahoi Vaishya Navyauvak Sangh, Datia and in that capacity he had complained against Vjnita Sharma to various authorities because of which Shri Vashishta, Dy. S.P. was annoyed with him and he has been implicated by the police falsely at the behest of Shri Vashishta.