SHAKIL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are arising out of impugned judgment, therefore, decided by this common judgment. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment dated 22-2-2005 passed in Special Case No. 29/2001 by learned Special Judge, (NDPS Act), Nee much, whereby convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 (c) or 8/29/15 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'), sentenced to R1 for ten years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- to each appellant, in default of payment of fine additional RI for four years.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case as unfolded before the Trial court is that on 14-7-00, Head Constable Shri Shiv Shankar of Police Station, singoli was going to enquire the report of Merg (death) to Village Palasiya via village Jhatla. In Village Jhatla in the locality of Sutars on the main road Truck no. M. P. 14-G/5351 was standing and Hummal were loading Poppy Husk in it. On enquiry by Head Constable, driver disclosed his name Shakil so Ajij qureshi. Driver also disclosed about having permit of contractor Bisan Singh. The appellant Badrilal the then Lambardar (Mukhiya) was loading Poppy Husk in the truck. Head Constable Shiv Shankar perused the permit and found false, it was only for transportation of Poppy Husk of the cultivators of Village Borda dhogawa, Madijar and Sodijar. Permit was not for Village Jhatla and Badrilal was illegally loading the Poppy Husk. The Head Constable Shiv Shankar having no power to investigate the matter under the provisions of NDPS Act took the truck and Poppy Husk with driver Shakil and appellant-Badrilal (Mukhiya) to police Station Singoli. In Police Station, Station House Officer Shri Parihar was not present and had gone to Court. On arrival of Station House Officer, Head constable Shiv Shankar intimated him about the events and Head Constable started proceeding. In presence of independent witnesses and with the consent of driver Shakil, search memorandum, identification of Poppy Husk, weighment of Poppy Husk found in the truck were prepared and out of each bag two samples each of 250 gram in total 120 samples were separately taken and sealed by Shri S. R. Parihar. Seizure memo was prepared, because of rainy season the bags became wet. All the bags were given identifying mark. Fascimile seal was also prepared. 2658 kilogram Poppy Husk in 60"bags were seized. From driver shakil Truck and its documents and from licensee Shri Kishansingh Meghawat, permit of transportation, list of cultivators of opium were seized and seizure memo was prepared. On 15-7-00 at 11:10 A. M. , the appellant-Shakil was arrested and at 11:15 A. M. , the appellant-Badrilal was arrested. Their arrest memos were prepared. Station House Officer Shri Parihar recorded the FIR on 15-7-00 at 12:10 noon vide Crime No. 83/00 under Sections 8/15 and 26 of the ndps Act and started investigation. Seized narcotic drug was handed over in safe custody of Head Constable. As per provision under Section 56, detailed memorandum was sent to Senior Police Officer, SDOP, Jawat and intimation to this effect was also sent to Special Judge under NDPS Act. With covering letter of S. P. , one sample out of seized Poppy Husk was sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar on 29-7-00. Laboratory report (Exh. P-25) was received and according to this report in Sample A-1 packet, Poppy husk (pieces of Poppy capsule of opium) was found. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Trial Court against the appellants under Sections 8/15 and 8/29/15 (c) of the Act.

(3.) BOTH the appellants refuted the charges, their defence was of false implication. The appellant Shakil submitted that he was sleeping in the Lodge situated in front of Singoli Petrol Pump. On 14-7-00 in the night at 1:00 A. M. , he was forcibly lifted from the room of the Lodge and fastened in a false case, he examined one witness in his defence Yushuf (D. W. 1 ). The defence of appellant badrilal was that he was called by the police personnel from his house and falsely implicated in the instant case. Badrilal has denied his position as Mukhiya. The learned Trial Court after recording the statements of the witnesses of both the parties and hearing them, finding the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as stated hereinabove.