LAWS(MPH)-2008-1-93

NANDA SAKHAJI MAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On January 28, 2008
NANDA SAKHAJI MAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 16-3-1995 of the learned Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No. 72/1994 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to r. I. for one year and fine of Rs. 3,000/ -. In case of default in payment of fine, the judgment directs him to suffer further imprisonment for three months.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, on 2-4-1994, information was received by the SHO Sunil Yadav, P. W. 4 from a source that in Village manankheda the accused had, in his field, cultivated Ganja (Cannabis) Plant without any license for the said cultivation. The information was recorded in exh. P-l and Sunil Yadav proceeded to the spot along with the Police force where he found the accused. The accused was informed that the Police wanted to take search of his field and if he desired search by any Gazetted Officer, the same would be arranged. The accused gave consent for being searched of which panchnama Exh. P-2 was prepared. After the Police and the witnesses gave their search of which Memo Exh. P-3 was prepared, they entered the field and found that the same contained 90 Cannabis Plants in violation of the provisions of the ndps Act, 1985. The Plants were seized vide Exh. P-4 and the accused was arrested of which Memo Exh. P-5 was prepared. The copies of the revenue record pertaining to the holding of the appellant were also procured from the Patwari and on coming back to the Police Station, Report Exh. P-8 was recorded. Samples of the Plants were forwarded to the Chemical Examiner and, according to his report Exh. P-9, found the articles seized to be Cannabis Plants. Accordingly, after completion of the investigation, the appellant accused was prosecuted.

(3.) THE accused pleaded before the Court below that he had already given his field to Puna for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the agreement Exh. D-l but not believing the defence of the accused, he was convicted and sentenced as hereinabove stated. Hence, this appeal.