DEONARAYAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.1.1995 delivered in Special Criminal "Case No. 17.4.1993" whereby the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur has convicted the appellant under Sec. 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act') and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000.00 and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that Assistant Sub-Inspector Shankar Chandrakar along with Head Constable No. 405 and Constable No. 1137 and also Jeep driver Constable Raj, who drove the Jeep No. M.P.P.3259, was on patrolling. On receiving information from an informant that near the Advani School, Jhopadpara in village Birgaon the accused Deonarayan was in illegal possession of Ganja, he proceeded to the house of the appellant and after completion of the necessary formalities and searching the house of the appellant, he seized about 500 grams Ganja from one plastic bag (jhilli). Seizure of Ganja was effected vide Ex. P.1 and Ganja was sealed. The accused/appellant was arrested. F.I.R. was lodged by the Assistant Sub-Inspector vide Ex. P.6. Information about seizure of Ganja was sent to his superiors vide Ex. P.7. Statements of witness - Narayan P.W.2 and Balduram P.W.3 were recorded. The seized Ganja was sent for its chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex. P.8 through Constable Kamal Kant. The Forensic Science Laboratory, after chemical examination of the same, found that it contained Ganja.

(3.) After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Sessions Judge, who made over the case to the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under Sec. 20 of the Act against the appellant, which was read over and explained to the appellant. The appellant abjured the guilt and his defence was that he has been falsely implicated in the crime.