STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. GHANSHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this appeal after grant of leave by this Court against the impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondent, passed by 2nd Additional sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Session Trial no. 205/93, judgment dated 29th March, 1994.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case as unfolded before the Trial Court is that on 21-3-1993 Station House Officer, Police Station, Daloda received information from mukhbir that respondent Ghanshyam was coming with opium on Rajdoot motorcycle bearing registration No. MP- 14-A-3634 to his resident. Station House Officer called Panch witnesses Pralhad and Mukesh and made them aware about Mukhbir report. He also sent intimation to this effect to the Addl. S. P. Mandsaur. The Station House Officer/vijay choudhari along with Panch witnesses and other police officials with Manohar Soni having weighing instrument reached near the house of the respondent in the night at about 1. 30 a. m. Respondent came on motorcycle and was stopped outside the house by the police. The respondent put motorcycle on stand in front of his house. He was made aware of Mukhbir information and after completing usual formalities of search proceeding, motorcycle of the respondent was searched and opium was found in the dickey of motorcycle, which was 5 kg. 500 gm. The opium was weighed by witness manohar Soni. Two samples were sealed separately and rest of the opium was also sealed after completing the procedure of search and seizure. The respondent was arrested and brought to Police Sahayata kendra, Daloda, where the offence was registered as 0/93 u/s. 8/18 of the Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as "ndps Act" for brevity) and thereafter, FIR was registered vide crime No. 54/93 in main police station, Bhavgarh. The seized contraband article was sent for chemical examination and its report received by the police was exhibit-P/34. On due investigation, respondent was charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable u/s. 8/18 of the NDPS act.

(3.) RESPONDENT denied the charges and his defence was that he was falsely implicated, because he made complaint against in-charge of police Chowky, Daloda and other police officials on 5-3-1993 regarding giving protection to the persons involved in satta and sale of illicit liquor. He filed Ex-hibit-D/3 but did not examine any witness. On the other hand, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and got proved 34 documents to prove its case. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondent by the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal filed by the State.