PRABHULAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A.No.1647/2020, an application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant who has been convicted by the Special Judge [ NDPS Act ] 1985, Jawad, Distt Neemuch in SST.No.78/2017, vide judgment dated 7.12.2019, for commission of offence punishable under Section 8 / 15 of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, with default stipulation.

(2.) The prosecution story in short was that on 8.6.2013 ASI C.S. Upadhyay, Police Station Ratangarh received an information that a truck bearing registration No.R.J. 07 G.C. 0121 was loaded with poppy straw and was moving towards Rajasthan. The vehicle was intercepted and found to contain 4029.8 Kg of poppy straw. The truck was driven by co-accused Prabhulal and present appellant - Raghunath was sitting on cleaner seat. The defence of the appellant was that the aforesaid contraband was being transported in accordance with license. The procedure which is adopted is that the contractor by beating of drums invites such agriculturist who grow poppy straw in their fields on license and these agriculturist then bring the poppy straw grown by them, which is loaded in the truck and the driver is handed over the permit and then the driver transports the same to godown of the licensee. The appellant has stated that it was not possible for him to determine as to whether there was any breach of the permit condition and that he bonafidely believed that the poppy straw was being validly transported. Number of permits which had been issued previously were submitted for perusal and these permits were shown to the prosecution witnesses, who have admitted that issuance of such permit Exhibit P/29 is the relevant permit as per which the poppy straw was being transported. This document has been exhibited and relied upon and the learned counsel states that under this permit the poppy straw was being transported. The trial court considered the above defence of the appellant, but referred to Section 35 of the NDPS Act, which raises a presumption against the appellant in such case and rejected the defence and convicted the appellant.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that in the circumstances of the case, the defence put forth by the appellant was very strong, that as cleaner of the vehicle that the appellant was not expected to know the terms and condition of the permit as the permit was not with him but was with the driver and it is also submitted that the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act was discharged by the appellant and, therefore, this appellant could not have been convicted and suspension of sentence has been sought on this ground.