BHOLA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused has been convicted in Sessions that No. 89/91 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahendragarh to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sarguja on 1-7-92 under Section 16/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs. one lac has also been imposed, in default of payment of fine the accused has been awarded one year R.I. Being dissatisfied by the said conviction and sen­tence, the appellant had preferred the ap­peal from Jail.

(2.) MISS Dasgupta was appointed as a defence Counsel. She was given sufficient time to prepare the case. Miss Dasgupta for the accused and Shri Awasthy, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State are heard.

(3.) MISS Dasgupta, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, the statements of PW 4 S.R. Dhratlahare are unreliable and there is nothing on the record to show or suggest that the place from where opium poppy was recovered was belonging to or was in exclusive possession or was owned by the accused. She submits that unless the prosecution proves that the place from where the opium poppy was seized was in exclusive possession and belonged to the accused, the accused could not be con­victed. On the other hand, Shri Awasthy, learned Counsel for the State submits that the evidence on record clearly shows that the accused had cultivated opium poppy, was in possession of the piece of the land from where the opium poppy was seized and even if the independent witnesses do not support the prosecution case, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the state­ments of PW 4 S.R. Dhratlahare. He submits that the Court below was justified in convicting the appellant.