MAKHANLAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 18.9.1996 passed by the Special Judge, Sagar in Special Case No.37/96, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act') and sentenced for two years' R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo for one month's imprisonment in addition.

(2.) THE prosecution's case, in short is that, on 31.5.1996 at about 8:00 p.m., in the night, S.H.O. R.P.S. Yadav (PW-2) of Police Station Kotwali, Sagar had received an information that one Pradeep Sahu was selling some Ganja by making the packets and therefore, he intimated the C.S.P. concerned on phone. He took Nayab Tahsildar M.C. Maravi (PW-1) and Nayab Tahsildar Prakash Nayak with him and made a search in a place of Tapra. He found a white plastic bag filled up with Ganja and therefore, he seized 4 kgs. of Ganja from the accused Pradeep. THE accused Pradeep had stated that he purchased that Ganja from the appellant Makhanlal and thereafter, S.H.O. Yadav went to the appellant's house and prepared a memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He seized 5 kgs. of Ganja kept in a white bag from the appellant and also a balance alongwith some weight and measures. THEreafter, S.H.O. Yadav went to the house of one Govind Sahu and 5 kgs. of Ganja was also seized from him. S.H.O. Yadav arrested all the accused persons and registered a case by an FIR Ex.P/10 at Police Station, Kotwali. Ganja was transmitted to the Forensic Science Laboratory and a report dated 26.9.1996 Ex.P/11 was received from the Forensic Science Laboratory by which it was established that the substance kept by the appellant was Ganja. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Sagar.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be correct. Not only 5 kgs. of Ganja was seized from the appellant but also a scale alongwith some weight and measures were also seized from the appellant and therefore, it is proved that he was a vendor of the Ganja without any licence. Hence, the learned trial Court did not commit any error in convicting and sentencing the appellant.