GOVIND RAMLAL MARAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the Judgment passed by learned Special Judge, (NDPS), Balaghat in Special Criminal Case No. 68/91 decided on 28.11.1992, convicting the appellant under Section 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 taht 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 straight way 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 were poppy plants 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.) SHRI Naik, learned Additional Advocate General submits that if the judgment in the matter of Balbir Singh (supra) is read in its true perspective, it would show that compliance of Sections 42(1), 42(2), 52 and 57 are not mandatory and unless failure of justice or abuse of the process or occasion of prejudice is shown the accused would not be entitled to be acquitted. He further submits that as Salim Khan, the Investigating Officer had stated before the Court that he had complied with the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act, the Court below was justified in convicting the accused.