MANGILAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stood charged and convicted under Sec. 8(b) read with Sec. 15(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act"). The Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court NDPS, Jaora, District Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. It was accordingly confirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.

(2.) The Assistant Sub Inspector, H.S. Sengar, posted at Police Station Kalukheda received an information through a telephonic message on 20/5/2010 that the appellant and coaccused Mathuralal against whom the trial stood abated due to his death were in the process of supplying narcotic substance in the nature of poppy straw. Upon registering the information in the Daily Diary and without wasting time on the procedural compliance, the police force stopped a tractor in which bags containing the contraband were seized. The accused were told about the search upon due compliance of Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act. A panchnama was written at the place of occurrence. Samples were taken while the accused were informed about the reason for the arrest. A First Information Report was registered under Sec. 8(b) read with sec. 15(c), Ss. 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act in Crime No. 53/10. A final report was filed before the jurisdictional Court on 13/9/2010. Before the trial court 16 prosecution witnesses have been shown in the list of witnesses to have been examined by the prosecution while marking 48 exhibits.

(3.) Of these witnesses, the public witnesses, namely, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 turned hostile. Among them P.W.2 & P.W.6 were panch witnesses. These two witnesses signed majority of the exhibits. P.W.5 though not declared hostile has deposed in clear term that the narcotic substance was in existence at the police station even before the alleged occurrence. This part of the testimony has not been questioned by the prosecution. Both the Courts placed reliance upon the FSL Report along with the police witnesses in rendering conviction. To be noted, two of the witnesses bearing testimony to the arrest memo have not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it.