PATHAK, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been directed against the judgment and order dated 07. 12. 1987 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 27/87 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and sentenced for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 Lac, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are that Ranjeet Singh (PW. 5), SHO, Police Station, Sanchore received a secret information on 06. 03. 1997 to the effect that accused-appellant has brought opium in his Dhani. After recording the secret information in the General Diary, PW. 5 proceeded towards the Dhani of accused Prahlada Ram in Govt. Jeep alongwith raiding party and reached at Dhani at about 12 A. M. On seeing the police raiding party, the accused ran away from Dhani with the plastic bag in his hand. The police party apprehended the accused near the Dhani and recovered a bag from his possession. On seeing the bag, it was found to have contained opium. The weight of the opium in 14 polythene bags was about 12. 700 kgs. After taking samples of the seized article and sealing and sealing them, the accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court of Magistrate from where the matter reached to the Court of learned Sessions Judge for trial. A charge under Section 8/18 of the Act was framed. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. In support of its case, prosecution examined 8 witness and tendered 7 documents in evidence. After close of the prosecution evidence, in the statement recorded under Section 313 Crpc, the accused denied the prosecution evidence and stated that the alleged recovery was made from the Dhani and he was not in sole possession of it. It was also stated that on account of litigations, he has been involved in the case by one Arjun falsely. In defence, 5 witnesses were produced. The learned trial judge, after hearing both sides, vide judgment and order dated 07. 12. 1987 convicted and sentenced the accused as stated hereinabove.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sanchore, the present appeal has been filed. In the instant case, what has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the mandatory provisions of the Act particularly Section 42 and 50 have not been complied with, therefore, conviction cannot be sustained. His next contention is that the evidence regarding recovery is also not trustworthy and lastly it has been submitted that on account of failure on part of the prosecution to prove that the opium recovered from the place was in exclusive possession of the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor has not disputed the legal position as far as provisions of Section 42 and Section 50 of the Act are concerned that the same are of mandatory nature. I have pondered over the rival contentions made before me. ;