BADRILAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 27.02.1998 passed by Special Judge (Narcotics), Mandsaur in Special Criminal Case No.6/1997, whereby appellant Badrilal has been found guilty under Section 8/18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and has been sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac with default stipulation.

(2.) Prosecution story as having been emerged during trial, briefly stated, is that on 19.12.1996 at around 9.05 a.m., Rajendra Chaturvedi (P.W.10), the then Station House Officer, Police Station-Piplya Mandi, Distt. Mandsaur received a secret information that a person is sitting near Tirupati Balaji temple having opium in his possession. He recorded this information in the daily diary of Police Station and also prepared memorandum Ex.P/1 in this regard. Memorandum Ex.P/2 was also prepared with regard to paucity of time to obtain search warrant without the culprit being given a chance to escape. Information in this regard, vide Ex.P/10 was sent to Additional Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur. Thereafter, Rajendra Chaturvedi (P.W.10) along with police force and two 'Panch' witnesses namely, Abdul Gani (P.W.1) and Babulal (P.W.7) proceeded to the place revealed in the information to conduct a raid. On reaching near Tirupati Balaji temple, Mandsaur, Rajendra Chaturvedi (P.W.10) found appellant sitting near the temple holding a plastic bag in his hand. The appellant seeing the police tried to run away from the spot, however, he was apprehended by the police. On interrogation, he revealed that his name is Badrilal Gayri and he resides at village Sindpan. Rajendra Chaturvedi (P.W.10) informed the appellant that he has information about opium being possessed by him, therefore, he would like to search him and that if he wants he can get himself searched in presence of gazetted officer or Magistrate or he can also give search to him. As per prosecution, the appellant agreed for being searched by Rajendra Chaturvedi (P.W.10). Thereupon, after complying with usual formalities the appellant was searched by Rajendra Chaturvedi (P.W.10), wherein opium lying in the polythene bag held by the accused was found in his possession. On weighment it was found to be 5 kilogram, 100 gram. The same was seized from the possession of the appellant, vide seizure memo Ex.P/3. Two samples of 30 grams each were drawn from the seized material. The samples so drawn and the remaining material were duly sealed. The appellant was arrested and was informed about the grounds of arrest. Thereafter, Rajendra Chaturvedi (P.W.10) came back to the Police Station. F.I.R. Ex.p/20 was registered in this regard against the appellant. During investigation, spot map Ex.P/19 was prepared. A detailed report (Ex.P/12) under Section 57 of 'the Act' with regard to search, seizure and arrest was sent by Rajendra Chaturvedi (P.W.10) to Additional Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur. The contraband was deposited in the 'Malkhana'. One sample of the contraband (Article A/1) was sent through S.P., Mandsaur, vide memo Ex.P/21 to Regional State Forensic Laboratory, Indore for chemical examination. Shri S.R. Patidar, the Assistant Chemical Examiner of the Laboratory, vide report Ex.P/23 found 3.245% morphine in the substance and opined that the same is coagulated juice of opium poppy. The witnesses were interrogated. After usual investigation a charge-sheet was laid against the appellant.

(3.) On a charge being framed under Section 8/18 of 'the Act'. The appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt examined as many as 11 witnesses before the trial Court including Rajendra Chaturvedi (P.W.10), who is said to have carried out the search and seizure. Abdul Gani (P.W.1) and Babulal (P.W.7) are said to be the 'Panch' witnesses of search and seizure, however, both of them has been declared hostile. Apart this, documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/23 were also marked in evidence. The appellant choose not to examine any witness in defence, however, documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/12 were marked in evidence during examination of various witnesses. The incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were brought to the notice of the appellant. During his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. The learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence, vide the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated herein above.