JAMIL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/6/1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Dewas in S.T.No. 103/ 1987 convicting appellant under section 8/18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short "the Act") and thereby sentencing him to suffer ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default further RI of 1 year, the appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) In brief, the case of the prosecution is that at 4.30 p.m. on 5.7.1986 at the check post of Forest at Dewas-Bhopal Highway, Sub INspector of Central Bureau of Narcotic namely Kamal Kumar Kothari along with incharge inspector L. D. Madnani etc. were checking the vehicles. At that juncture a bus of MPSRTC bearing registration No. MBH 860 coming from Mandsaur and going to Bhopal was stopped and was checked. It is stated that in the said bus the appellant was sitting as a passenger and while searching the bus he was found to be a suspected person and was interrogated. During interrogation he disclosed his name to be Zamil, son of Lateef. resident of Village Dag, District Jhalawad, (Rajasthan). It is stated that appellant was having one black ragzine bag with him and after obtaining his consent, on searching the said bag contraband article opium (Afeem) was found in four polythene packets wrapped in a news paper and blue striped bed sheet. On smelling, the contraband article by seizing officer Kamal Kumar Kothari and the witensses, it was found to be opium (Afeem). The contraband article (opium) was weighed at the spot by Ganpat and on weighing it was found to be 3.700 kg. Out of bulk of 3.700 kg. two samples of 30 gm. each were taken out and after keeping them in the empty cigrette packets they were sealed and were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory.

(3.) In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and placed Ex. P/1 to P/20 the documents on record. The defence of the appellant is of false implication and the same defence he set forth in his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC. However, in support of his defence, he did not choose to examine any witness.