VISHWANATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.7.1996 passed by Special Judge, Chhatarpur in Special Case No. 151/94 convicting the appellant under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short the Act of 1985) and sentenced to 3 years R.I and fine of Rs. 2000/-. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 22.11.1994 at about 17:50 hrs. on receiving information, Virendra Kumar Mishra, Station House Officer (Sub Inspector), Police Station Nowgoan, District Chhatarpur (PW/3) proceeded on the spot situated in village Singravan Khurd Har in field owned and possessed by the appellant and found him involved in cultivation of cannabis and seized 16 plants of cannabis including 13 shrinked stems and 3 plants having leaves and also found about 100 gm cannabis in a polythene beg. Seizure Ex. P/1 was prepared by J.P. Gautam, Additional Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur. Vide Ex. P/2, appellant was arrested. Regarding aforesaid incident, Virendra Kumar Mishra (PW/3) drown a "Dehati Nalishi" Ex. P/5. On the basis of which vide FIR Ex. P/6 at Police Station, Nowgoan a case under Section 20 of the Act of 1985 has been registered against the appellant. On 9.12.1994 vide letter from S.P. Chhatarpur Ex. P/7 seized contraband was sent to Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for its chemical examination. Vide FSL report Ex. P/8, the said contraband was found to be cannabis. During investigation Raj Bahadur Khare, Patwari (PW/4) prepared a spot map. After completing the investigation, police Nowgoan submitted a charge-sheet in the court concerned.

(2.) Trial court framed charge under Section 20 of the Act of 1985. Appellant abjured guilt. Defence of the appellant was that of false implication.

(3.) To substantiate the case of prosecution, statements of Rajkumar, panch witness (PW/1), Katua (PW-2), Virendra Kumar Mishra, SHO (PW-3) and Raj Bahadur Khare, Patwari (PW-6) were recorded. After appreciating aforesaid evidence, vide impugned judgment learned trial court has found a case of prosecution to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and he has convicted and sentenced the appellant as above.