MUKKAN ALIAS BALMUKUND Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stands convicted under S. 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and has been awarded 10 years' R.I. and sentence of payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- has also been imposed upon him.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 17-6-92, when certain persons of Crime Investigation Department were on patrolling, they were informed by somebody that the present accused Mukkan alias Balmukund was having a bag containing contraband opium. After receiving the information from an informer, without taking any warrant or without sending any information to the higher officer, the Department people arranged a raid, apprehended the accused and after taking search of his bag found 6 Kg and 400 gms. contraband opium in his bag. Immediately after the search was over, the matter was informed by PW/4 H. S. Billa to the concerned Magistrate, Dy. Superintendent of Police and Station House In-charge of the concerned Police Station. The substance seized from the accused was sent for its chemical examination. After receiving the reports etc., the prosecution filed a charge-sheet against the accused. The accused denied the commission of the offence and submitted that the bag did not belong to him and he was falsely framed, defence regarding non-compliance, of Ss. 42, 50, 52 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act, were also raised. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no non-compliance of Ss. 42, 50, 52 and 57 of the Act and the prosecution was successful in proving that, the accused was found in possession of contraband article, convicted the accused and awarded the sentence as referred to above.

(3.) Ms. T. Kholiya, learned counsel for the appellant submitted before the Court that, there is apparent non-compliance of Ss. 42, 50, 52 and 57 of the Act. She submits that in view of the violation of mandatory provisions of the Act, the accused/appellant is not required to show the prejudice occasioned to him but is entitled to his acquittal. On the other hand Shri Naidu, learned Penal Lawyer, states that the prosecution did comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 42(2), Sections 50, 52 and 57 and, as such, the accused/appellant is not entitled to be acquitted.