BITTU Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 22.5.1996, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara District Narsinghpur, in Special Sessions trial No.46/95. The trial Court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 20 (k) (i) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (herein after in short 'the Act 1985) and awarded sentence of R.I. three years and fine of Rs.5,000/-.

(2.) The prosecution story in brief is that Assistant Sub-Inspector Raghunath Singh (PW-8) on 07.05.1995 when he was on patrolling reached at village Barhata he received information from the informer that cannabis plants were planted by Mr. Bittu the present appellant in his field. On the basis of aforesaid information, he prepared Panchnama (Ex.P-5) of the information in presence of witnesses Ghasiram and Himalaya Bahadur (PW-4 and PW-5) respectively because there was likelihood that the plants may be destroyed, if he had taken search warrant from the Judicial Magistrate. Hence, he prepared the Panchnama (Ex.P.6) to conduct search. PW-8 reached on the field of appellant and searched the field. He informed the accused that whether he would like the search from a Magistrate be called for. The appellant had given his consent for search without Magistrate. Thereafter, at 3.40 PM, in front of witnesses Ghasiram and Himalaya Bahadur , the search of the field of the appellant was carried out and in the search, it was found that appellant had grown 10 plants of cannabis in between the plants of Tomato and sugarcane. A spot map was prepared. The cannabis plants were seized and the appellant was arrested.

(3.) The Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P.21) was prepared and thereafter, FIR was lodged. The plants were sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Laboratory Sagar and as per report of the laboratory (Ex.P.24), it was found that there was cannabis in the trees. After investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the Court. The appellant abjured his guilt. He pleaded that he was not owner of the field and he had given the field to his son Dallu and his son had given the same on Sikami to Jasman Kourav. The appellant had not been living at village Barhata, he was living at village Bareli. After trial, the trial Court found the offence proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and awarded the sentence.