STATE OF DELHI Vs. JITTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these ap peals are filed by the State of Delhi against judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal Nos. 111 and 47 of 1999. By the said order, the High Court confirmed an order of conviction re corded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 98 of 1996 dated October 14/October 21, 1998, but restricted the sentence to the period already under gone by the convict.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that Didar Singh, Circle Inspector along with Constable Ram Karan was on patrolling duty on Sep tember 07, 1996. At about 8.15 p.m., they reached near car parking at old Lajpat Rai Market. There they received secret informa tion that two persons aged about 35-40 years were likely to come from the side of Bagichi Angoori Bagh and they were pos sessing jute bags containing poppy straw powder. They would catch a bus going to Punjab. On receipt of such information, SI Didar Singh organized a raid party along with police officials and 4/5 persons from general public. At about 8.35 p.m., two per sons were apprehended. Both of them were carrying two jute bags on their heads. On inquiry, one of the accused disclosed his name as Jitti and the other gave his name as Vaishnu Dass, resident of District Hoshiarpur in Punjab. The secret informa tion was then disclosed to both of them and they were given option to be searched in presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. They, however, declined the offer. Thereaf ter the search was carried out. From accused Jitti, 22 Kgs. of poppy straw powder was found whereas from other jute bag 23 Kgs. of poppy straw powder was recovered. Thus in all, 45 Kgs of poppy straw powder was found. Samples were taken from each jute bag and placed in two bags. The remaining poppy straw powder was kept in the same jute bags again. Usual seals were affixed. Samples were then sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory. The result disclosed that samples were found to contain poppy straw powder.

(3.) After usual investigation, charges were framed against the accused under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.