MANOHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 17/1998 (Gopal Patidar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) arising out of judgment dt. 12.11.1997 passed in S.T. No. 101/1996 by learned Additional Sessions Judge Jaora District Ratlam, M.P. whereby appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter referred to as NDPS Act in short) and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine Rs. 1 lac each with default stipulation.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, on 19.2.1996 while SHO Police Station Ringnod Ratlam, came from Banwada to Ringnod, after taking a round he found appellants coming on Motorcycle having no number in front. When appellants were searched in presence of witnesses about 8 kg opium was seized from back carried by appellant Gopal which was kept in a bag of cement. A case was registered against the appellants, after preparation of seizure panchnamas challan was filed and learned Trial Court after trial of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 18 of NDPS Act convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of the Judgment.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the witnesses of seizure Samroj PW-1 and Balaram PW-4 have turned hostile and have not supported the case of prosecution. Regarding seizure there is only statement of SHO Ramchandra PW-5. Investigating Officer has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Ramchandra PW-5 has not given intimation of seizure to the Higher Authorities after the seizure. Further there is no evidence that seized articles were kept intact in secured custody, after seizure till they reached the Laboratory for chemical examination. Therefore, there is non-compliance of provisions of Section 52, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. Learned Trial Court is not justified in convicting the appellants in the absence of compliance of provisions of Section 42,52,55 and 57 of NDPS Act. Ramchandra PW-5 in his cross-examination has admitted that investigation has been done by Shri Suryavanshi T.I. He has not filed the spot report sent to the Superintendent of Police. He has filed the acknowledgment Ex.P/18, the acknowledgment Ex.P/18 does not show the particulars of letter written to the Superintendent of Police or crime number of the offence as mentioned in front of letter sent to District Judge Ratlam. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that although there is evidence that seized articles were kept in Malkhana of Police Station, but there is no evidence regarding sending the seized articles intact in sealed condition to the Laboratory. The Police Constable who took the seized articles to the Laboratory has not been examined.