KALUSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being dissatisfied with the judgment dated 10/10/1998 passed by the Special Judge (under N.D.P.S. Act), Mandsaur in Special Case No. 8/97, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing them each to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default of payment thereof to suffer further R.I. for two years, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as putforth by the prosecution before the trial Court was that on 17/02/1997 at 3.20 a.m. The Station House Officer PW/5 Anil Singh received information through Mukhabeer that the accused/appellants were carrying opium for the purposes of sale from Suwasra. A Panchnama (Ex. P/i) was prepared to this effect and sent the same to the S.D.O.P. Sitamau. The S.H.O. then started for the spot alongwith the police party and surrounded the spot. The Police Party saw the appellants coming towards Ganesh Temple. The policeparty stopped them and took search of their persons. They found 2.300 Kgs opium each in their possession in two white plastic packets. From each of the packets two samples of 30 grams opium was taken. The opium was seized vide Ex. P/2. The appellants were anested vide arrestmemos Ex. P/S and P/6. The SHO registered the FIR (Ex. P/b). The samples of the seized opium were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Indore. According to the FSL report, the samples were of opium. The FSL report is Ex. P/12. During investigation, spot map was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. The appellants denied the guilty. The defence of accused Kalusingh was that he had sold a bullock to Shambhu Banjara for Rs. 3,000/- which amount was due to him. On this account, there was a dispute between him and Shambhu Banjara. They took the plea of false implication. In their defence, they have examined Amra (DW/1 and Gabba (DW/2). The learned Trial Court, after heaiing both the parties found the appellants guilty of the offence with which they were charged and convicted them accordingly and sentenced as indicated above.

(3.) I have heard Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Mayank Upadhyaya, learned Dy. Adv. for the State and perused the entire record.