LAWS(MPH)-1990-4-23

RAJJAQUA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On April 18, 1990
Rajjaqua Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Rajjaquc challenges his convictio nunder Sec-8 (c) read with Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentence of 10 years R. I. awarded by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, by judgment dated 28-11-1986.

(2.) THE accused-appellant was prosecutad on a complaint put up by Excise Sub-Inspector, Circle Mandsaur (West). The prosecution story is that on 27-5-1986 Excise Sub-Inspector Raj Kumar Jain was on his beat, he found accused Rajjaque near Government College, Mandsaur, transporting in a bullock-cart 22 bags of poppy straw weighing 8.80 quintals. The accused had no permit or authority to transport the same. Raj Kumar Jain (P.W. 1) seized poppy straw in presence of the witnesses and took two samples of 500 grams each. The poppy straw alongwith bullock-cart was then taken to godown of licence-holder Surajmal Kanhaiyalal and given to him on suprad-nama.

(3.) AT the hearing of the appeal Shri Kulshrestha, learned Counsel repre­senting the appellant admitted that on the evidence led no case was trade on aga.inst the accused-appellant ; witnesses necessary for unfolding the prosecu­tion Cif.se were not examined. There was no evidence to show ownership of the bullock cart; bullock cart was not produced before the Court; constables who accompanied the Excise Inspector were also not examined. The evidence on the point as to ruaterial being poppy-straw or poppy-husk was also not satisfactory. If the material was poppy-husk then the provisions of the Act would not apply to the same. For this argument Shri Kulshrestha relied on a decision of this Court in Shantibai v. State of M. P., Cr. A. No. 6'3 of 1987, decision on 20-6-1989, repo rted in ; 1989 EFR 753 (M. P.) (I.B.) Shri Kulshrestha also argued that there bad been non-compliance with requirement of Section 52 of the Act vitiating the judgment and conviction of the appellant. In support of his argument Shri Kulshrestha relied on a number of decisions which would where necessary, be referred to at the proper place.