LAWS(MPH)-2008-12-22

BHADAR Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On December 03, 2008
BHADAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Bhadar has preferred the appeal being aggrieved by the impugned judgment date 16-2-1994 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, bhopal in Sessions Trial No. 111/92 whereby the appellant, Bhadar has been convicted under Section 8-C read with Section 20 (b) (ii)of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'ndps Act') and sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 1 lac, in default, two years and six months simple imprisonment.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution in short is that on 4-8-91 at about 7:30 pm, S. J. Zafrin (PW-6) received information from the informer, that near Moti Masjid, Bhopal in front of bazer Enterprises, the appellant is in possession of contraband article in polythene bag. S. J. Zafrin apprehended the appellant bhadar along with witnesses and took search of him. Charas weighing 590 gms was found in three polythene packets from the possession of the appellant Bhadar. The seized charas was being weighed through ramdayal (PW-5) sample weighing 10 gms was taken from charas. Sample and remaining 580 gms charas were sealed separately. They were seized as per seizure memo Ex. P-2 Panchamma Exhibit P-3 was prepared. S. J. Zafrin along with seized articles and the accused/appellant came back to police station and made entry in Rojanamchasan-ha Exhibit P-7. Case was registered as Exhibit P-8c. Sample of seized contraband article was sent to chemical examiner, Government Opium and Alkaloid Works, Nee-much. As per the chemical examiner report exhibit P-10, the seized article was found to be charas, After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted Case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial.

(3.) LEARNED trial court framed charge under Section 8-C read with Section 20 (b) (ii)of NDPS Act. The appellant, Bhadar abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication. His defence is that he was taken by police from his house.