KANHAIYA LAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal arises out of conviction and sentence passed by learned Special Judge, Neemuch under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in Special Sessions Case No.38/2006 by the impugned judgment dated 05.11.2007 whereby, learned Special Judge convicted the present appellant under section 8/18 (b) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/and in case of default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo RI for one year.

(2.) According to the prosecution story, on 31.08.2006, Piyush Charles (PW8), incharge of Police Post, Nayagaon, received an information through the informant that the present appellant was transporting contraband Opium in vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-09-UA-0098 and he is coming towards Neemuch. He is transporting the contraband Opium for its delivery to an outside smuggler. On receiving such information, Piyush Charles (PW8) completed all the formalities and proceeded towards Old Tole Tax Post with the police force. There, on seeing the vehicle approaching, he, with the help of police force intercepted the vehicle. During the search of the vehicle, 10 kg Opium was found under the seat of the driver, which was seized after completing all the formalities by Piyush Charles (PW8). The contraband was sealed in three packets and the main packet containing bulk quantity of the contraband was marked as Article-A while, two samples of 30 gms. each were marked as Article-A1 and A2. The samples were sent for examination and after completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

(3.) After recording the evidence of the prosecution and the defence, learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty under section 8/18(b) of the Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal is filed on the grounds, inter alia, that the seized contraband was not produced in the Court and, therefore, recovery of the alleged Opium from the possession of the present appellant was not proved. No independent witness supported the prosecution case and in such circumstances, sole statement of the Investigating Officer cannot be relied upon.