SURENDRA JAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal under Sec. 374(2) of the Code Criminal Procedure feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 24.8.2001 passed by the Special Judge (under Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act), Indore in Special Case No. 39/2000 whereby appellant/accused has been found guilty under Sections 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as the Act, for brevity) and has been sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to suffer imprisonment for 3 years.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 13.8.2000 Sub-Inspector of Police Shailendra Sharma posted at Police Station MIG Indore received secret information that near Sayaji Hotel Tempo Stand one person named Surendra was standing and was having contraband article brown sugar with him, This information has been recorded in the daily diary and superior officer has been informed and concerning Police Sub-Inspector Shailendra Singh together with two independent Panch witnesses Umesh (PW 7) and Sanjay Jain (PW 8) with police force reached on the spot caught the appellant/ accused Surendra and after giving him necessary notice with regard to the search as provided under Sec. 50 of the Act. After obtaining his consent, on search found one polythene bag in his pocket wherein white colour powder was being kept. On weight, the total weight is found to be 20 grams which appears to be brown sugar. Two samples of 5 grams each were taken out and properly sealed for its chemical examination. The remaining seized article has also been sealed properly. Necessary Panchnama has been prepared. They returned back to the police station and registered a case under Sections 8/21 of the Act, sent the sample packet for chemical examination of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Indore from where report Ex. P30 has been received wherein simple is found to be diacetyl morphine. After due investigation charge-sheet has been filed before the Special Judge, Indore. The appellant/ accused abjured the guilt and his defence is of false implication in the case. He also examined two defence witnesses for his defence version. Learned Trial Court after due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence on record by the impugned judgment held the appellant/ accused guilty under Sections 8/21 of the Act and sentenced him as stated hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved by which the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.