NAIN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant an immate of Central Jail No. 1, Tihar Jail, Delhi was convicted for an offence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1 lac by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on 27.8.1990, the appellant was found in possession of 450 milligrams of heroin in the Central Jail No. 1, Tihar Jail, Delhi. The appellant was searched by the Jail Warden, Kishan Lal PW 7 at the behest of Shri B.B. Kaul, Assistant Superintendent Central Jail No. 1. The seizure was effected in the presence of Shri B.B. Kaul and the Jail Warden Chand Ram (PW 9) and nine small packets containing hereoin were recovered from the appellant's possession. The contraband was produced before Shri Darshan Lal Sharma P W 2, Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail No. 1. The police was called. Sub-Inspector Om Prakash Singh (PW 10) accompanied by the police constable Dharam Singh (PW 8) arrived at the Central Jail No. 1 and seized the contraband vide seizure memo (Ex.PW 2/B). The contraband was weighted in the presence of witnesses, and a sample was taken for chemical examination. The appellant was arrested and the seized articles were kept in safe custody of the police station. The contraband was found by the expert to be heroin vide report Ex. PW 10/B.

(3.) THE main contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the inherent infirmities in the prosecution evidence and that there is no legal evidence in support of the finding that the appellant was found in possession of the contraband. It was maintained that Shri B.B. Kaul, Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail No. 1 was a material witness in this case and he has been withheld by the prosecution for some oblique motive giving rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution case.