ZUBEDABI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arguments on this appeal filed by the appellant Zubeda under S. 374 of the Cr. P. C. heard. The Appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.5.2004 passed by the Court of Shri R. K. Shrivastava, Special Judge N. D. P. S. Act, Ratlam in Special S. T. No. 39/00 by which the appellant has been convicted under S. 8/18(B) of the N. D. P. S. Act (for short the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) and in default of payment of fine to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) According to prosecution case on 28.9.2000, A. S. I. J. S. Pawar of Police Station, Industrial Area, Ratlam on receiving an information from the informer that a lady Zubeda is coming on motor cycle with Sherani and going towards Baswada, will board a bus from Banjali Petrol Pump of Ratlam for Baswada and will proceed to Mumbai from Baswada. Thereafter J. S. Pawar arranged for a trap and called a lady constable Shobha Minj and reached the spot. There they saw that one motorcyclist dropped a lady but on chasing he ray away. The lady was stopped by the police force and after obtaining her consent as per procedure, her person and bag were searched. From her bag 9 packets of polythene were found; each of the packet was containing opium. In all 9 kg of opium was seized from her bag. Two samples of 24-24 gms. each was prepared which were marked as article A1 to Art. I, A2 to A -I2and 9 packets were marked as article A to article I thereafter packets and samples were sealed and as per procedure all the samples A1 to I1 were sent to F. S. L. Indore for examination. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed and after trial, appellant was punished as mentioned above.

(3.) It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that she has been falsely implicated in this case. There are two sets of evidence. In one set, she is said to have been in the bus from where she was caught and her bag was seized. In the second set of prosecution story, she was caught after she alighted from the motorcycle and was searched. Provision of S. 50 of the Act was not complied with. She was not searched by a lady police constable. Her personal search was conducted against the rules. Samples were not sealed as per procedure. There is difference of evidence about the weight of samples; that they were of 12 gms. or 24 gms. Samples were not sealed at Police Station. The independent witness has not supported the prosecution case. The property was deposited in the Court and there was inordinate and unexplained delay in the deposit of the property in the Court. As per paper news given by the Superintendent Police, the accused was traveling in the bus from where the opium was seized. The quantity of opium is recorded in Ex. D. 1 as 9 kg. and in Ex. D. 2 as 8 kg. Hence appeal be accepted.