SHANKAR LAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') the accused -appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') has called in question the legal validity of the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No. 144/1994 whereby he has convicted the accused, Shankarlal for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ -, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment of six months on first count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment of two years on the second score, with a further stipulation that both the sentence would run concurrently.

(2.) PROSECUTION story, in brief, is that in Sardar Ward, Pipariya, Smt. Urmila Bai (PW -2) owns a house and the accused had taken two rooms of the said house on rent at the rate of Rs. 400/ - per month. On 13 -4 -1994 the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Pipariya got an information from the informer that the accused -Shankarlal, who was tenant in the house of Smt. Urmila Bai, two persons belonging to Tamilnadu had come over there and the accused was in possession of 'Ganja'. It was also informed to the officer concerned that arrangements were being made for supply of 'Ganja'. Upon obtaining the aforesaid information the Station House Officer got the same recorded under Ex. P/4 -A. Being satisfied with the information the Station House Officer went with a raiding party to the house of Shankarlal. The Station House Officer had also informed the Tahsildar, Shri M.L. Urvasha (PW -6), a gazetted officer to the place of search. Accordingly the said Tahsildar reached at the Police Station. The house of the accused was searched in presence of 'Panch' witnesses, namely, Gokul Prasad Sharma and Jagdish Prasad and at that juncture the accused along with co -accused persons were found present. A suitcase containing 15 kgs. of 'Ganja', one 'Attachi' containing 10 kgs. of Ganja, another carton containing 15 kgs. of Ganja and two other containing 21 kgs. of 'Ganja', thus in toto, 61 kgs. of 'Ganja' were seized from the room in question. A 'Jimmanama' was prepared, vide Ex. P/l. Thereafter the matter was noted down, vide Ex. P/5. The Investigating Officer prepared the FIR, Ex. P/6 at the spot and took samples from various containers. After complying with all the formalities they were sent for forensic test. The test was conducted and the test report was sent which indicated that the seized article was 'Ganja'. The test report is marked as Ex. P/9. After completing all other necessary formalities charge sheet was filed against all the accused persons under Section 20(b)(i) and further under Section 25 of the Act against the Appellant herein.

(3.) THE prosecution to prove its case examined as many as six witnesses. PW -1 is Gokul Prasad, a witness to seizure; PW -2, Smt. Urmila Bai, landlady of the premises in question; PW -3, Jagdish Prasad, another witness to seizure; PW -4, Shiv Bahadur Singh, the Head Constable who was a member of the raiding party; PW -5, Ganesh Prasad, a formal witness; and PW -6, Mr. M.L. Urvasha, who was Tahsildar at the relevant time and in whose presence search had taken place. It is apposite to mention here the Station House Officer, Shri Naval Singh expired after the date of occurrence and his signatures on the documents were proved by Shiv Bahadur, PW -4, the Head Constable.