CHEENA ALIAS RAJJAB Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 3-5-99, passed in Special Case No. 45/98 by the learned Special Judge (N. D. P. S.), Jabalpur, convicting the appellant under Section 20 (b) (i) read with Section 8 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for four years and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for three months, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 10-9-98 Asstt. Sub-Inspector Shukla received an information that accused Cheena Musalman @ Rajjab of Jhiria Pasiyana was carrying Ganja on Scooter No. MP 20-P/5492. After receiving the information, the same was recorded in Sanha No. 643 and the information was sent to CSP. This fact was recorded in Sanha No. 644. The police party thereafter proceeded to the spot and after laying the trap, arrested the accused in front of the house of one Lallu Painter. Under Ex. P-10, the required intimation was given to the accused and after seeking his no-objection, a search was taken by the police officer. In the search, about 10 kg. Ganja was recovered from the bag carried by the accused. Necessary panchnamasl memos were prepared on the spot and thereafter the accused was brought to the Police Station. The contrabands were kept in Malkhana and thereafter the first information report was registered. The information of the episode was sent to the Supdt. of Police, Jabalpur, thereafter the samples already drawn from the seized Ganja were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, who under their report informed the police that the sample sent for analysis was Ganja. After collecting the evidence and recording the statements of the witnesses, etc. , the prosecution filed the challan. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, held that the prosecution was successful in bringing home the guilt. It accordingly convicted and punished the accused as referred to above.

(3.) SHRI S. K. Nema, learned counsel for appellant has made manifold submissions. According to him, the accused was made a prey to save another person from whose possession the contrabands were recovered. According to him, there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, and as the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, the same deserve to be rejected by the Court. According to him, from the statement of D. W. 3 Dr. Khan, it would clearly appear that third degree method was applied against the accused, therefore, also he deserves to be acquitted. It was lastly contended that as there is no compliance of Section 50 of the Act, the accused deserves to be acquitted.