Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals, have been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment dated 12.9.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chhabra Dist. Baran in Session Case No. 55/2007 convicting them for the offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act and sentencing each of them to 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. One Lakh, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months R.I. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Jodha Ram, PW 8, SHO, Chhabra allegedly apprehended the appellants herein on 26.4.2007 and recovered contraband opium from the bags held by them as described below: Nathulal 3 Kgs. Kalyan 3 Kgs. Ramcharan 4 Kgs.
(2.) AFTER following the usual procedure of search and seizure, registration of F.I.R. and investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the three appellants for the aforesaid offences Charges were framed against them for the offences under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The learned trial Judge at the conclusion of the trial proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence, this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants have restricted their arguments to a solitary ground for challenging the conviction of the appellants. They urged that the recovered contraband as well as the samples collected during investigation and received back from the FSL were not produced and exhibited before the Court during trial and thus the conviction of the appellants is vitiated. Learned counsel urged that proving the goods recovered (Mudda Maal) by physically producing them in the Court is mandatory as per law and was not followed by the prosecution. It is urged that by the non production of Mudda Maal in the Court, the prosecution failed to physically prove that any contraband opium was actually recovered from the appellants. They relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr. : 2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 655, Ashok @ Dangra Jaiswal v. State of M.P. : 2011 Cr.L.R. (SC) 363; Jitendra & Anr. v. State of M.P. 3 and Vijay Jain v. State of M.P. : 2013 2004 SCC (Cri) 2028 ACR 3183 and submit that the appellant's conviction deserves to be set aside on this ground alone.
(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and relies on the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Udai Lal : 2008 (11) SCC 408.;