KANDRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Being aggrieved by the Judgment passed by learned Special Judge, (NDPS), Balaghat in Special, Criminal Case No. 67/91 decided on 28-11-1992, convicting the appellant under Sections 8/18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act sentencing him to undergo R.I. for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 1 lac in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for two years the appellant has filed this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 28-2-1991 Sub-Inspector Salim Khan received an information that the present accused-appellant was cultivating Poppy in contravention of the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Taking with him certain Panchas and the Police guard he proceeded to village Suswa where he found the accused and enquired from him that he had come to take search of the Badi (field) of the accused as he had the information about the growing of the Poppy plants. The accused straightway admitted cultivation of the poppy plants. Thereafter, a Panchnama was prepared the Poppy plants were uprooted samples were taken out and thereafter the samples and the remaining plants were sealed. The accused was brought to the police station where the First Information Report was registered against him. The prosecution further says that the samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory who as per their report informed the prosecution that the articles sent for examination where poppy plants were having fruits unlanced fruits and some flowers. The prosecution being well equipped with the report of the F.S.L. filed the challan against the accused. The learned Trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties convicted and sentenced the accused as referred to above.

(3.) Taking shelter under the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh Mohinder Kumar v. State Panaji-Goa and Mukkan v. State of M.P. learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as the mandatory provisions of Sections 42. 52 and 57 were not complied and as the prosecution has not produced the material documents which could throw some light on these mandatory. provisions the trial Court was absolutely unjustified in convicting and sentencing the accused.