TRILOKINATH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12 -12 -1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 33/1996 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted under section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ - in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 2 years. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: - -

(2.) ON trial, the learned Session Judge acquitted accused -Ushabai Thakur on the ground that the provisions of section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act were not complied with properly which has prejudiced her right.

(3.) MR . B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, argued that though the plot was of the ownership of appellant - Harendra Singh Thakur, but it was an open plot since a very long time which was accessible to all; it was covered with Beshram bushes. Only on account of seizure of Charas from the said plot, it cannot be said that appellant - Harendra Singh Thakur was also involved in sale of Charas and he was also liable for punishment. So far as, conviction of Trilokinath is concerned, he argued that the memorandum and seizure were not proved by the independent witness and testimony of Aditya Kumar Sharma (P.W. 7), on account of his conduct of making manipulation in the police paper, was unreliable, therefore, conviction of appellant - Trilokinath Pandey which is solely based on the memorandum and seizure can also not be sustained.