JAGGI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhar in the matter of Cr. C. No. 2154/82.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 2-11-82 a truck bearing No. CPH-7173 was apprehended by police on information that opium was being transported through it. The said truck was belonging to Satyanarayan s/o Amarchand Sharma and was driven by the petitioner. Prosecution alleged that co-accused Murari s/o Ramsewak was a person travelling through said truck by taking lift temporarily. When the said truck was searched, 4 quintals of opium was found which was stored in a concealed chamber which was covered by wooden and metal planks. After the said seizure, all the accused were put to trial and trial was over, the learned trial Court acquitted accused Murari s/o Ramsewak and Satya Narayan s/o Amarchand Sharma; however convicted the present petitioner by sentencing him to undergo RI for two year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo further RI for two months. Learned trial Court held that the owner of the said truck- Satyanarayan was not having the knowledge of private/secret chamber and opium stored in it. Learned trial Court acquitted Murari by holding that he was the person travelling in the said truck by taking lift temporarily. Shri Ukas submitted that the State Govt. filed an appeal challenging the order of acquittal against those two person. However, that appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was confirmed. Shri Ukas argued that as the petitioner happens to be a driver, he is not supposed to have the knowledge in respect of said secret/private chamber which was not traceable at the time of initial search of the said truck. He pointed out that said opium was seized by police after opening those wooden and metal planks. It is his argument that prosecution has not proved that the present petitioner was in possession of the said opium.

(3.) Shri Ukas submitted that the learned trial Court committed the error of law in coming to the conclusion that petitioner was in possession of the said opium, and the said error of law was repeated by the appellant Court which dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. He submitted that the order of conviction and sentence needs to be set aside as illegal and petitioner needs to be acquitted.