RAM DAYAT GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8-12-1995 passed by Special Judge (Sessions Judge) trying the cases under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hence forth 'the Act'), in Criminal (Special) Case No. 40/94, whereby the Court below has convicted the appellant under Section 20-B (i) of "the Act" and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default, to further undergo R.I. for one year.

(2.) THE story of the prosecution is that P.W. 5. Anoop Nag received an informa­tion to the effect that a person, who was travelling in a bus which was going from Bailadila towards Kanker, was carrying Ganja with him. Anoop Nag found that person at Bhanpuri, travelling in the said bus, which was standing at Bhanpuri Bus Stand. Thereupon, P.W. 5. Anoop Nag searched the suitcase and raxine bag and found that in the suitcase the accused had 11.900 Kilograms of Ganja and in the raxine bag he had 4 kilograms of Ganja. After making the seizure, the Investigating Officer got the contraband drug weighed and then sealed it after taking samples for sending it to the Regional Forensic Scien­tific Laboratory, Raipur. The sample was sent to the aforesaid laboratory and the Investigation Officer received Ex. P-5 which stated that the sample contained Ganja. On these allegations the appellant was charged under Section 20-B (i) of the Act.

(3.) THE trial Court found in paragraph 9 of its judgment that the Investigating Officer did not comply with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. The notices Ex.P-3 and Ex. P-4 did not comply with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. How­ever, the Court below was of the view that Section 50 is applicable to those cases only 'where the person of the accused is sear­ched. It is not applicable when the con­traband drug is recovered from the luggage which the appellant was carrying. After rejecting the contention of applicant that Section 50 of the Act was not complied with, the Court below, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the con­clusion that the applicant is guilty of an offence covered by Section 20-B(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant was con­victed under that provision and was sen­tenced as already mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment above.