(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25-1-2008 passed by Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act, 1985'), Durg in Special Case No. 11/2006. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Semadri Jena has been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the 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 R.I. for 2 years.
(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under :
(3.) Shri K. K. Dwivedi and Shri Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no compliance of provisions of Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the Act, 1985. They further argued that the secret information was received by Rajeev Sharma but he did not record the said mukhbir suchna. They further argued that there is nothing on record to show that the tin container was containing Ganja and the sample taken out from the container was sealed and specimen of seal was prepared. The seizure from the appellant was not in accordance with law. The seized article was not produced in the Court. There is possibility of tampering of the sample. The investigating officer did not prepare seal panchnama and specimen of seal was not affixed on the seizure memo and other requisite documents. Information under Section 57 of the Act, 1985 was also sent belatedly. Hence, the appellant deserves acquittal. They placed reliance on Directorate of Revenue v. Mohammed Nisar Holia, 2007 AIR(SCW) 7864), Shakuntali Kol v. State of M.P., 2008 2 MPHT 97, Om Prakash alias Baba v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 1 MPWN 58, Makhdam Khan v. CBN Mandsaur, 2011 2 MPJR 299, Kuleshwar Dhruw v. State of C.G.,2008 3 CgLJ 257, Nizamuddin v. State, 1995 CrLJ 661), Jitendra v. State of M.P., 2003 CrLJ 4985) ), Mohammad Asif v. State of M.P., 2003 4 MPHT 343(DB) and Sheikhlal v. State of M.P., 2007 3 MPHT 250.