LAWS(MPH)-2004-2-27

HALKI BAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On February 06, 2004
HALKI BAI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21-8-2000 passed by Special Judge, (N.D.P.S. Act) Guna in Spl. Sessions Trial No. 5/1999 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs. l.OO.OOO/- (rupees one lac), in default further R.I. of two years, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 23-11-1999 Siddha Nath Rathour, who was Station House Officer In-charge of P.S. Dharnabada went for the investigation of Crime No. 228/99 under Sections 363 and 366, IPC at Rutiyaee, he received an information from an informant that a lady wearing red clothes and resident of Pagara is having Opium with her. The said information was recorded in writing and was sent to S.D.O.P. Raghogarh through Constable No. 966 Veer Bhan Singh. The S.O. along with his force proceeded towards A-B road, Guna and at the instance of the informant found one lady nearby a hotel, on being asked she stated her name to be Halki Bai (accused/ appellant). A notice under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act (Ex. P-4) was given to her and she voluntarily agreed to give search to the Station House Officer In-charge. Being a lady her search was taken by one Uma Devi wife of Prabhulal Sharma. In the search 500 gms of Opium, which was found in two polythene packets, was seized from her person. At the spot seizure memo was prepared, the contraband article was sent for chemical examination and after completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge.

(3.) The Special Judge framed charges punishable under Section 8/18 of the Act. Needless to emphasis the appellant abjured her guilt. Her defence is of false implication. In her defence the accused examined one Kamar Lal.