USHA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by appellant against the judgment and order of conviction passed on 10.3.1997 by Third ASJ, Ratlam, in S.T. No. 260 of 96, whereby the appellant, who was charged and prosecuted for commission of an offence under S. 8/21 of the NDPS Act (for short, the Act), for having carried with her 40 gms. of brown sugar, has been found guilty and has been awarded 10 years' RI with fine of Rs. 1 lac; in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 4 months.

(2.) PROSECUTION story, in short, is that on 4.10.1996, at GRP Ratlam, an informant came and informed that one lady passenger travelling in train, Ajmer Poona, would be carrying with her, contraband. On this information being received, panchnama was prepared and raiding party went with him to platform No. 2 where the said train was to come. SHO Chouhan had gone to the platform along with the Police force. The lady i.e., the appellant, was identified by the informant. Her activities were watched and as soon as SHO arrived, she was asked to give her search. It is said that on search being made, in a small bag which she was carrying, 40 gms. of brown sugar was found. After seizure of the contraband, samples of 5 gms. each were prepared and sealed. After completing other formalities, she was brought to the Police Station where formal FIR was lodged. Seized contraband was sent to Alkaloid Factory, Mandsaur for its chemical analysis. It is not in dispute that the contraband was brown sugar as has been analysed by the Alkaloid Factory. After completion of other formalities, charge sheet under S. 8/21 of the Act was filed against the appellant. Appellant abjured her guilt and pleaded that she has been falsely implicated in the case. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses on its behalf. Appellant accused did not examine any witness in defence. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and awarded her sentence as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for appellant submitted that perusal of Ex. P 2 declaration, and Ex. P 3 consent letter of appellant would show that she was not at all given option of being searched either by the nearest Gazetted Officer or by the nearest Magistrate.