MAYADHAR ROUT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAYADHAR Rout (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') calls in question legality of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, finding him guilty under section 20(b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act), and consequentially sentencing him to undergo three years rig ours imprisonment, pay fine of Rs. 5,0001 - and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year more.

(2.) ACCUSATIONS which led the trial of the accused, essentially are as follows: On 22 -2 -1991, the Sub -Inspector of Excise (P.W. 1) while holding patrol duty at village Ekdalia - Champapur with his staff got reliable information regarding storage of huge quantity of ganja in the house of accused. He immediately called independent witnesses to guard the house, searched the same, and recovered six gunny bags containing 148kgs. of ganja. He draw 50 gms as sample from each bag, and put seals with the sealing wax, affixed paper slips containing signatures of the accused and sent the sample for chemical examination. The articles were seized and the accused were forwarded to the Court of Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur. Prosecution report was submitted after receiving the report of Chemical Examiner that the samples were ganja. The accused pleaded innocence.

(3.) IN support of the appeal, learned counsel for the accused -appellant highlighted that there was non compliance with the requirements of section 50 of the Act, and therefore, no culpability should have been attached on the accused. It is also submitted that the articles alleged to have been seized were not properly sealed and there is no material relating to custody of the seized articles between the period from the date of seizure, i.e. 22 -2 -1991 and the date of production of the articles before the Court for the first time long after during trial in 1993. According to P. W. 1 the articles were kept in the excise Malkhana. This according to him rendered the prosecution version vulnerable. The learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the judgment of conviction and sentence. According to him, even if there has been any infraction as pointed out by the learned counsel for accused, no prejudice was caused, as the same was neither pleaded nor established before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.