MAHMOOD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 2.3.88, at about 4 p.m , a police party consisting of police officials of Police Station Chandni Mahal headed by ASI 0m Parkash were on patrol duty in the area. ASI 0m Parkash is stated to have a secret information that a person having large quantity of opium would come from the side of ChitIi Kabar Chowk. This information was conveyed to SI P.P. Singh and it was reduced into writing. The raiding party of the police personnel Was formed and one passerby Parsahotam Kumar Batra was also joined. Some nearby shopkeepers were asked to join the raiding party but they declined. The raiding party formed a picket at the corner of Gali Chamar Wali and Chitii Kabar. At 4.20 p.m the appellant was seen coming carrying a paperbag in his hand and he was accosted by the police party at the pointing of the informer. The appellant was informed of the information against him and the intention to search him. He was told that if he wished to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate, it can be arranged but the appellant declined the offer. ASI 0m Parkash (Public Witness 7) took search of the appellant and the paperbag being carried by the appellant was found to contain opium which on weighment was found I kg 50 grams. In the meantime SHO, Inspector R.K. Sharma arrived at the spot and he was apprised of the situation and a sample of 20 grams of opium was separated from the rest of the opium and they were separately sealed and packed in his presence with his seal and the seal of ASI 0m Parkash. CFLS form was filled and specimen seals were affixed thereon. Seal of ASI after use was handed over to the public witness. Rukka was sent to the police station and a case under Section 18 NDPS Act was registered against the appellant. The case property and the sample were deposited in the malkhana under the directions of the SHO. On receipt of report from CFSL .it was revealed that it was opium. The accused was charged for an offence punishable under Section 18 of the NDPS Act to which he pleaded not guilty. During trial the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its version. In defence the appellant took the plea that he was innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case. He is a bad character of the area. He was falsely implicated in this case by calling him to the police station. The public witness is known to the police and is a scooter dealer in Darya Ganj. The police officials are interested witnesses and they have deposed falsely.

(2.) Upon trial the learned Addl Sessions Jujge convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of of Rs. I lakh and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(3.) Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. As the appellant was not represented by any counsel. Miss Rebecca Mamman advocate was appointed amicus curiae to assist the Court in this appeal.