CHARANLAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.8.95 delivered by Special Judge, Balaghat in Special Case No. 70/94, where by the appellant has been convicted under section 20 (i) readwith section 8 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act') and has been sentenced to R.1. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ -, in default whereof, to further undergo S.I. for one year.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that the appellant is resident of village Limdewada, P.S. Hatta. District Balaghat. He was living there in an Abadi plot. It is alleged that on 28th February, 1994 an informer came to know during his patrol that the appellant Charanlal was growing Ganja in his Badi. This information was given by informer to the Station House Officer of P.S. Hatta, District Balaghat, A.S.I. of police, R.J. Dhurve, PW 4. Thereafter, on 28.2.94, RJ. Dhurve reached the spot and gave a notice Ex. P -2 dated 28.2.94 to the appellant under section 50 of the Act that if he so required, the search could be made before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. It is alleged that the appellant agreed to the search to be made by R.J. Dhurve. Thereupon, R.J. Dhurve made a search of Badi belonging to the appellant and found 49 pieces of plants of Ganja in between the crops of garlic. onion and chilli. After identifying these plants, a seizure -memo, Ex. P -5 was made by the Investigating Officer before the witnesses. He also made a Panchnama, Ex. P -4. Thereafter, it was claimed that the Investigating Officer seized articles and put them in a packet and sealed them. These packets of cannabis plants were kept by the Investigating Officer in police station Hatta. During the course of investigation, the police officer also took photographs of the Badi, which are on record alongwith the negatives marked as Ex. P -9 to Ex. P -27. The Investigating Officer went back to the police station and lodged the FIR and registered the offence. He also deposited the sealed material in the police station.

(3.) THE trial Court, thereafter, framed a charge against the appellant under section 20 (a) (i) readwith section 8 of the Act for cultivating a cannabis plant. The appellant/accused denied to have committed any offence and claimed to be tried.