LAWS(MPH)-2011-10-37

CHHOTELAL LODH Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On October 14, 2011
CHHOTELAL LODH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 20.5.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Special Case No.33/1995 convicting him under Section 8 read with section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

(2.) According to prosecution, on 11.4.1995, Station Officer of police station Dharampur received information from an informer that appellant had grown cannabis plants in his field. After recording the said information, Sub Inspector K.P.Mishra (PW-9) along with other constables reached at the field of appellant situated in village Banki and found that midst of other plants of tomato, pumpkin and other vegetables three small plants of cannabis were growing. After arranging for the security of the above plants, the message of the above fact was communicated to other officers through wireless. On 12.4.1995, in presence of Head Master of the school namely C.P.Yadav (PW-5) panchnama Ex.P/2 was prepared. On the same day at about 12:10 p.m. the aforesaid three green plants of cannabis were seized and sealed. Appellant was arrested. The aforesaid plants were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.P/19 was received whereby it was confirmed that the seized plants were of cannabis. During investigation, Khasra Panchshala of the year 1994-95 was obtained from Ram Sajiwan, Patwari (PW-7). Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/13 was recorded at the spot, on the basis of which first information report Ex.P/14 was registered at the police station. After requisite investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was put up for trial before the Court of Special Judge.

(3.) Defence of the appellant was that of false implication. According to appellant, the said land did not belong to him and he was not in possession of the field. He did not know about the growing of cannabis plants.