RAMASWAMI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Ramaswami challenged his conviction under Section 8 read with Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter called the Act) and sentence of 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default further two years R.I. awarded by Additional Sessions Judge, Garoth, by judgment dated 16-1-1989.

(2.) Prosecution story is that Subhaschan dra Dubey (P.W. 3) S.0., P.S. Shyamgarh on 8-1-1986 at 7.30 a.m. received information from an informer that two persons South Indians a man and a woman were travelling by Mandsaur-Chambal Bus. He entered this information in Rojnamcha of the Police Station, copy of which is Ext. P.-3 and then proceeded to Subji Mandi a Tn-road Junction where he could stop the bus. He was accompanied by his assistants. He also procured two witnesses Shivnarayan (P.W. 2) and one Nensing (not examined). When the bus arrived, he stopped the same and proceeded to search the bus two South Indians, a man and a woman, who were sitting in the rear scat were getting down the bus; Subhaschandra Dubey grew suspicious and got the two alighter from the bus. Man was accused-appellant Ramaswami, on search of his person, inside his langot two plastic bags were found. They contained opium one kilo each bag, samples of the substance were taken duly sealed and sent later for chemical examination to chemical examiner, Neemuch. On return to Police Station S.C. Dubey, made entry in rojnamcha Saha No. 264, copy of which are Ext P.-4 and Ext. P.5. Investigation complete, challan was put up against the accused. On 22-9-1986 accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to charges under Section 8 read with Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution in all examined five witnesses in support of its case. Accused denied that any seizure was effected from him and denied know ledge about other material allegations. He did not examine any witness in defence. The Additional Sessions Judge found prosecution case proved and convicted and sentenced the accused as set out above.

(3.) The appellant presented this appeal through Jail. As he was unrepesented Shri Brajesh Pandya, Counsel at the expencess of Legal Aid Committee of the High Court was provided to him. The accused was also produced during hearing. The appellant submitted that he is freedum fighter and he is falsely involved in the case. Shri Brajesh Pandya submitted that other Police Officers who accompanied Shri S.C. Dubey to the place where bus stoped and seizure effected were not examined, no identification parade was held. The prosecution evidence did not prove the case against the appellant. In support of his argument Shri Pandya relied on Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of M aharashtra.