MANISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant Manish Kumar was found guilty by the Additional Sessions Judge, Garoth, Camp Bhanpura, District Mandsaur for the offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act. His conviction and sentence was confirmed by the High Court. The Station Officer of P.S. Bhanpura received secret information on 8.8.1990 that one person Manish Kumar was standing at the bus stand was having "smack" with him. He reduced such information into writing and copy of the information was sent to S.D.O. and thereafter proceeded to the bus stand Bhanpura. At the bus stand he found the Appellant and after compliance of the mandate under Section 50 of the NDPS Act the Appellant was searched and 750 milligrams of "smack" which was kept in a polythene bag was recovered from him.

(2.) THE Appellant was arrested and the article was seized. During the trial the Appellant alleged noncompliance of Section 42 of the Act, but he was convicted by the Court. We heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. The counsel for the Appellant contended that the recovery of the article from the Appellant was not satisfactorily proved as the two mazhar witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. It is argued that as there was no independent witness, the recovery should be treated as not proved. We do not find any force in this argument. The Police Officer, who effected the recovery, gave evidence to the effect that he conducted the search and recovery the article. It is also important to note that the recovery witnesses admitted having signed Mazhar and there is no rational explanation as to how the signed the Mazhar. The evidence of the officer proved the recovery of the article from the Appellant.

(3.) THE counsel for the Appellant further submitted that there was recovery of only 750 milligrams of smack and it amounts to small quantity and the Appellant must have kept this drug with him for his personal consumption, and therefore the quantity of narcotic drug recovery from the Appellant being small in quantity he is liable to be punished for a lesser sentence, as provided in the Act. There is no evidence to show that the narcotic drug recovered from the Appellant was intended for his personal use. It was found kept in a polythene bag in a concealed manner. The Appellant had also no case that he was in the habit of using the drug and he kept in his possession for his personal consumption. When questioned under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure the Appellant completely denied the recovery of the drug from him. There are no materials before us to show that the narcotic drug recovery from the Appellant was for his personal use. That plea of the Appellant has to be rejected. No other point is raised by the Appellant in this case before us. The Appellant was granted bail by this Court and the Appellant is directed to surrender his bail bonds within 3 weeks failing which the Special Judge will take appropriate steps to arrest him to undergo remaining period of sentence.