DALVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant being aggrieved by judgment, dated 13-9-1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 152 of 1994 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh convicting the appellant under S. 8 read with S. 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Subtances Act, 1985 sentencing him to undergo R.I. for ten years and pay fine of Rs. one lac in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months, has filed this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 8-6-1994 P.W. 6 Satyendra Pandey, Station House Officer, Police Station Kharsia was going to Raigarh for attending certain Court proceedings, he saw a truck coming in a very high speed from opposite direction, he required the truck to stop but as the truck did not stop he felt suspicious and chased the said truck. The said truck could be intercepted at Madanpur barrier in Kharasia. The occupants of the truck were required to board down from the truck. The registration papers, licence and other documents were also checked. According to the prosecution in the personal search of the accused a purse was recovered from him. On opening of the purse in one portion of the same some money was found while in the second portion of the said purse about nine grams opium was found. After finding the contrabands proper steps were taken, the contrabands were weighed on the spot and thereafter the truck, present appellant his associate and others were brought back to the police station. The first information report was registered and the samples drawn from the said articles were sent for analysis. The F.S.L. informed that the sample was of opium. Being armed with the statements of the witnesses, the seizure memo and the report of the F.S.L. the police agency filed challan against the accused. The accused denied the commission of the offence, therefore, the accused was put to trial. The learned trial Court, on 19-8-1994 framed the charges against the present appellant. It would be necessary to quote the charge. The accused denied the commission of the offence, therefore, the learned trial Court recorded the statements of the witnesses, heard the parties and delivered its judgment holding that the prosecution could bring home the guilt. It accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused.

(3.) Shri Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution came with the case that the narcotics were recovered on person of the accused especially in search of his purse and as the learned Court below in para 22 of its judgment has clearly recorded that the opium was not recovered from his purse but was recovered from the truck, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. He further submitted that the appellant was answerable to the charge levelled against him and the trial Court could not make out a new case for the prosecution and convict the appellant.