BAGDIRAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal has been preferred under section 374 of the CrPC by the appellant Bagdiram being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.11.2004 passed by the Court of Ku. Pratibha Ratnaparkhi in Special Criminal Case No.66/2002 by which the appellant has been convicted under section 8/ 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (herein after referred to 'the NDPS Act' for brevity) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/ -; in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution story, on 28.5.2001 ASI Shri B.L. Sharma of Police Station Shyamgarh, District Mandsaur received an information from the informer that accused Bagdiram having a bag with impression of Bharat bidi was going to deliver opium and can be raid handed at Chandawasa Ghatiya Road, therefore, Shri B.L. Sharma arranged for trap party and raided the accused Bagdiram. He was apprised with the said information and after obtaining his consent for search of himself and his bag, in his personal search, a note of Rs.20/ - and copy of the notice under section 50 of the Act was seized from his right pocket. On search of his bag, which he was having in his right hand, a polythene bag was found. On test of the contains of the polythene bag, it found to be opium. On weighing, the same was found to be 5 kg. Out of which, two samples of 30 grams each were prepared and they were duly sealed and remaining opium 4.950 kgs. was seized separately. Samples were marked A -1 and A -2 and bulk quantity of the opium was marked as Article -A. After completion of the proceedings as per the law, the appellant was arrested and on return to Police Station Shyamgarh, Crime Nol24/2002 was registered under section 8/18 of the NDPS Act. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed against the appellant and after trial, he has been convicted as mentioned herein above.

(3.) IT has been argued on behalf of the respondent -State that the discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses are natural and they do not affect the root of the case. The appellant has been proved to be guilty for the heinous offence, hence the appeal being devoid of any merit be dismissed.