VED PARKASH ALIAS TATOO Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ved Parkash-appellant was tried before Shri Pritam Pal, Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri for offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for having kept in his possession kg and 100 gms of opium. He was convicted of the offence and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1 lac or in default 2 years and 6 months further R.I. Feeling aggrieved against this order, Ved Parkash has come up in this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution story briefly narrated and as given by SI Surjit Singh P.W. 3 runs as follows:

(3.) On December 21, 1989 SI Surjit Singh along with HC Sahib Singh and others was present for petrolling. He received a secret information that Ved Parkash deals in opium and was coming from the side of village Badi Majra. He then proceeded towards cremation grounds and he joined Om Parkash P.W. in the raiding party. About 10-15 minutes thereafter, the appellant came from the side of Badi Majra and he was pointed out by the informant, who left the spot after this pointing out. The appellant was then apprehended and he was given an offer to be searched either by the police or by some Gazetted Officer and he declined to be searched before the Gazetted Officer and memo Ex. P A was prepared. His search was carried out and from the bag which the appellant was carrying, opium weighing 1 kg 100 gms was recovered. Out of this recovered opium 100 grms was separately sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PB for sample. Ruqqa Ex. PC was forwarded to the police section and formal FIR Ex. PD/i was registered by ASI Madan Pal. Site plan Ex. PC was prepared. Statements of the P.Ws. were recorded and the appellant was informed about the grounds of his arrest. On return to the police station, the appellant along with the P.Ws. were produced before the Inspector Bishan Singh, who after making inquiries, put his own seal on the sample as well as the case property. The case property was deposited with the MHC. The appellant was sent up in police lock-up.