NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU JODHPUR Vs. MURLIDHAR SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Narcotic Control Bureau, Jodhpur has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur by which judgment the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent and his father filed against the judgment of the Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Court, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 155/94 whereby the trial Court had convicted the appellant and his father of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act) and sentenced them to undergo 10 years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows :

(2.) On the basis of certain confidential information received by the officers of the department on 23-9-1994 a raiding party was organised under the supervision of the Assistant Director of the Bureau who incidentally was a Gazetted Officer. Said team saw the respondent and his father Murlidhar Soni at about 9 p.m. on that day standing near the Manthan Cinema at Pali at which point of time the accused Murlidhar Soni (since dead) was carrying a cloth bundle. The raiding party then went to these 2 accused persons and identified themselves and expressed their desire to search the bag carried by Murlidhar Soni. The two accused persons were told that they have the right to be searched in front of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Thereupon the said persons expressed their desire to be searched by a Gazetted Officer and the Assistant Director, Narcotic Control Bureau being a Gazetted Officer conducted the search of the cloth bag from which 2.41 kg. of heroin was recovered. After taking the necessary samples the contraband goods were seized in front of witnesses and sealed and the said 2 persons were arrested. During the course of investigation it came to the knowledge of the investigating authority that there were 3 other persons involved in the purchase and sale of narcotics from the respondent herein and his father hence they were also arrested and charged for the offences as stated above.

(3.) The trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established its charges against the respondent and his father Murlidhar Soni and convicted them accordingly while it found the prosecution has failed to establish charges against other accused persons hence acquitted them.