RAM KALI ALIAS SUNDARIYA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.3.1996 passed by learned Special Judge, Satna in Special Case No. 106/1995 convicting the appellant under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short "the Act") and thereby sentencing her to suffer R.I. for 3 months and fine of Rs. 3,000/-; in default further R.I. for 3 months, the appellant has taken the shelter of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 6.9.1995 at 8 a.m. while patrolling, Sub-Inspector Phoolsingh Tekam received information from the informant that one lady is selling the contraband article (ganja) at Lalta Chowk. The said information was reduced in the Roznamcha of City Kotwali and necessary information in that regard was given to the Superintendent of Police from Police Kotwali. Sub-Inspector Phoolsingh Tekam along with lady constable Jyoti Bhattacharya and other police personnel arrived at Lalta Chowk where they found that appellant was selling the ganja. The Investigating Officer obtained her consent for search and thereafter the lady constable Jyoti Bhattacharya took her search and ganja weighing 200 gms. was found in a plastic bag which was tied with her waist. The ganja was seized and from the entire bulk of 200 gms. a sample of 30 gms. was taken out and the bulk and the sample were separately sealed. The appellant was arrested. The sample of contraband article (ganja) was also sent for chemical examination.

(2.) After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted in the Special Court who framed the charge punishable under Section 20 of the Act. Needless to say that appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence.

(3.) In order to bring home the charge the prosecution examined as many as three witnesses and also placed Ex. P-1 to P-9 the documents on record. The defence of the appellant is of false implication and the same defence she set forth in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, in support of her defence she did not choose to examine any witness.