ABID KHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has called in question the legality of the judgment and order passed by learned Special Judge, Dewas in the file of NDPS Act Case No. 1/2005 dated 15/10/2005 wherein convicted the appellant U/s. 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short "the Act") and sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine of rupees 10,000/ -, in default of payment of fine further RI for six months.

(2.) THE prosecution case molten in parvo as unfolded before the trial Court is that on 28/11/2004 Sub Inspector O.P. Solanki of Police Station Kotwali, Dewas received information from informant that the appellant was present near old bus stand, Dewas having charas in his possession. On this information, the Sub Inspector O.P. Solanki along with constables and panch witnesses reached at old bus stand, Dewas and found the appellant roaming near Peepal Tree. They disclosed their identity to him and also informed him about mukbir information; thereafter the appellant was apprised regarding his search. The appellant was given full understanding and opportunity of search and seizure by Gazetted Officer or Executive Magistrate and if he desires and willing to give search to S.I Shri O.P. Solanki, S.I. can also take search of him. It is said that appellant expressed his willingness to be searched by S.I O.P. Solanki. The consent memorandum (Ex.P. 2) was prepared to this effect signed by the appellant, Sub Inspector O.P. Solanki and panch witnesses. On search, from the right pocket of paijama of appellant Rs. 39,490/ - cash and from left pocket one polythene bag were found. On checking, in the polythene packet the charas was present which was confirmed by test, smell and burning. The Investigating Officer in presence of the panchas prepared seizure memo, memorandum of weighment and out of total quantity of 150 gm, two separate sample weighing 25 gm each were also taken separately and panchnama (Ex.P. 7) was prepared to this effect. The samples were sent to the FSL, by memo (Ex.P. 13). After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the commission of the offence punishable U/S. 8/20 of the Act.

(3.) THE appellant denied the charges. According to him, he was falsely implicated, therefore, he was put on trial. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence whereas prosecution has examined in total 10 witnesses and got proved 13 documents to prove its case. The learned trial Court, convicted the appellant as mentioned herein above.