SURESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been preferred under section 374 of the Cr.P.C by the appellants Bansilal, Gendabai and Prema @ Pepabai being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22/09/2008 passed by the Court of Shri J.P. Rao, Special Judge ( under NDPS Act), Neemuch in Special Sessions Case no.15/2004 by which the appellants have been convicted under sections 8/18 ( b) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act ( in short ' the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 13 years with fine of Rs.1,50,000/- each; in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years by each.

(2.) According to the prosecution story, on 04/04/2004 Shri Khalil Khan, ASI, Police Station- Neemuch Cant PW-8 received an information from the informer that one gents and two ladies were conveying the opium in bags used for carrying clothes and they were likely to go from Roadways Bus Stand Neemuch to Rajsthan by bus. The above information was registered in Rojnamcha-sana. Panchanama for the information of the informer was prepared and sent to CSP Neemuch. Thereafter, ASI Khalil Khan along with head constable Omprakash Singh, Bansilal Bhati, constable Ramesh Bairagi, lady constable Kiran Sharma and panch witnesses Kishanlal and Baludas and with articles for investigation reached the Roadways Bus Stand, Neemuch by govt. vehicle bearing registration no. M.P.-03-2656. There they found the accused persons ( two ladies and one gents) holding bags in their hands. On enquiry, they confirmed their names to be Bansilal, Gendabai and Pepabai. They were apprised with the information of the informer. Consent for their search was obtained under section 50 of the NDPS Act. Panchanamas were prepared.

(3.) It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The independent witnesses were hostile. Compliance of section 52-A of the Act was not proved. The seized property was not produced at the time of the evidence in the trial Court; only samples were produced. The proceedings under section 50 of the Act was defective. The search of lady accused persons by lady constable Kiran Sharma was not proved. The lady constable was not examined at the time of the evidence. Hence on the basis of the evidence produced, the appellants were not liable to be convicted. Hence the appeal be accepted.