PUSHPARAJ Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed on 9-1-1993 by the Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No. 192/92, the appellant preferred this appeal. The appellant/accused Pushparaj has been convicted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of rs. one lac and in default, one year rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) PROSECUTION story in brief is that on 2-5-1992, Sub-Inspector P. W. 1, s. K. Shrivastava received an information that the appellant/accused Pushparaj is selling opium in his house. This message was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha and thereafter, he proceeded towards the house of appellant/accused with police force and witnesses. When he reached at the house of appellant, the sub-Inspector found that the appellant is sitting on empty jute bag. He informed the appellant that search can be made by the Gazetted Officer, but the appellant agreed for search to be taken by the Sub-Inspector. Thereafter, search of sub-Inspector and his staff members was taken and then, Sub-Inspector lifted the empty jute bag and the opium was found under it. The opium was seized and seizure memo (Exh. P-3) was prepared. Thereafter, the house of the appellant was searched, but nothing was found in the house. The appellant/accused pushparaj was arrested and arrest memo (Exh. P-5) was prepared. The sub-Inspector registered the crime and the report (Exh. P-6) was lodged. The opium was sent to Chemical Examiner of Government Opium and Alkaloid works, Neemuch, vide memo (Exh. P-8) on 23-6-1992, from where the report (Exh. P-13) was sent in which, opium was confirmed. Charge-sheet was filed and after recording of statements of witnesses, the Trial Court pronounced the judgment and the appellant was convicted as above.

(3.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the alleged contraband article was not seized from the possession of appellant. The seizure memo (Exh. P-3) and Panchnama (Exh. P-4) were not prepared at the spot. The statement of P. W. 7 Ramkesh is against the prosecution story. The mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have not been complied with. The prosecution evidence is not believable at all.