LAWS(MPH)-2008-12-3

STATE OF M P Vs. ASLAM

Decided On December 10, 2008
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant
V/S
ASLAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant State has filed this appeal after grant of leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by learned i ASJ, Ratlam in ST No. 261/1991 dated 20/7/1995.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, SHO Ramesh Chandra Arya of Station road, Ratlam Police Station received information from informer and on the basis of said information, he along with City Superintendent, S. P. Singh (PW. 2) and other police personnel reached near culvert situated by the side of Ratlam Paper mill. They were accompanied by independent witnesses Ramesh and Govardhan. At 12 45 am in the night one person reached there having bag in his hand and on search of the bag, they found 1. 800 kg opium. The opium was seized The person disclosed his name Sheshmani @ Yusuf and also disclosed that he has purchased the said opium after paying price of Rs. 2500/- to the respondent. On the information given by Sheshmani @ Yusuf, SHO Ramesh Chandra Arya along with police force reached at the house of the respondent situated in the locality known as Kheda Sheranipura, Ratlam. In the night at 1. 00 a. m search of the house of the respondent was made and they found one steel tiffin in an almirah containing 920 gm. Opium. The opium was seized in presence of the witnesses after taking two samples each of 30 gm. Respondent was brought to the police station with seized opium where SHO recorded FIR (Ex. P. 8 ). Sample of opium was sent for examination to FSL and its report is Ex. P. 14. According to report, 1. 50 % morphine was available in the sample. The respondent was charge sheeted for commission of offence U/s. 8/18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act"),

(3.) RESPONDENT denied the charges, therefore, put to trial. He has not examined any witness in defence. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondent on two grounds; number one is non compliance of mandatory provision of Sec. 50 and number two breach of mandator)' provision of Sec. 42 of the Act.