MANSARAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Criminal Appeal filed under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has challenged his conviction under section 20 (b) (ii) read with section 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as Act) for which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh, In default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years, by the VIIIth Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Session Trial No. 53 of 1991, decided on 29.4.1991.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that when A.S.I. Laxman Singh Chouhan (P.W. 1) who at the relevant time was posted in Police Station Talaiya, Bhopal, received an intimation on 19.7.1989 that the appellant was indulging in the sale of illicit liquor he, therefore, proceeded to Budhwara locality within the jurisdiction of his police Station. At Budhwara, S.I. Vipin Tiwari and S.K. Verma met him and all proceeded to Itwara locality. At It war a, Laxman Singh Chouhan took S.I. Ashok Tiwari with him and raided to house of the appellant Mansharam at about 7.10 p.m. on 19.7.1989 and arrested the appellant under section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A.S.I. Laxman Singh Chouhan (P.W. 1) also seized liquor from the residence of appellant. After his arrest and seizure of liquor, A.S.I.-Laxman Singh took a personal search of the appellant and from the pocket of his Pant he recovered seven Pudias of charas wrapped in a handkerchief. The said charas was seized by him as per seizure memo (Ex. P/i) under his signature and the signatures of the witnesses. A.S.I-Lax man Singh took the appellant to the Police Station Talaiya where he recorded First Information Report (Ex. P/2) of the occurrence. The seized charas was sent for examination to the Chemical Examiner, Sagar, who, as per his report (Ex. P15), found positive results.

(3.) The appellant was charged and tried for commission of an offence under section 20 (h) (ii) read with section 8 (c) of the Act. The appellant abjured his guilt, denied the alleged seizure of Charas from him and pleaded to be tried contending that he was falsely implicated. The learned trial Judge accepted the prosecution evidence regarding seizure of charas on personal search of the appellant which amounts to an offence under the Act and, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as said above against which this appeal has been preferred.