NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN,J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and Order dated 24.3.2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk, in Sessions Case no. 68/1998 whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonments and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-; In default of payment of fine, to further undergo two years imprisonment.
(2.) The Central Narcotics Bureau filed a complaint through Shri D.P. Bhatnagar, Inspector In the office of narcotics Department at Kota, against the accused appellant that under the leadership of PW-2 K.L. Sharma a raid was organised and Bus No. RJ-14-P-4384 was stopped on the instructions of Shri S.P.S. Sabbarwal, Inspector (PW-4). On checking they saw the accused sitting in a suspicious condition, therefore, a notice was given to him under Section 50, of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 apprising him about his right to get himself searched either before Magistrate or before independent Gazetted Officer. He gave his consent for his search in presence of Gazetted Officer of the Department itself. On search the contraband opium weighing 3.90 kgs. was recovered from his custody which was seized vide a recovery memo Ex.P-2. Two samples of 24 gram each Were taken which were sent for analysis. As per analysis report dated 7.9.1998 the sample was found by qualitative and quantitative analysis to be opium within the meaning of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
(3.) The learned trial Court framed charge against the accused appellant under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In support of the case the prosecution examined five witnesses and produced documentary evidence l x.P-I to Ex.P- 13. Thereafter the statement of accused was recorded, under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. wherein he stated that he has falsely been implicated in the case. No evidence was produced in defence. The learned trial Court, after considering the submission of both the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as mentioned above. Aggrieved with the same the present appeal has been preferred.;