GAURI SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GAURI Shankar alias Gauru son of Daulat Ram was charged under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for brevity the Act) for allegedly carrying 10 kilograms of opium in his possession without any permit or licence. He stands convicted by the impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala dated 5.2.1988 and has been sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default to suffer further RI for two years. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, he has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) IN short the case of the prosecution is that on 24.1.1987 Raghbir Singh (PW2), the Inspector/SHO, police station Ambala Cantt with police officials and one Nasib Singh Sarpanch son of Mehma Singh (PW-1) had apprehended one Bikram Singh alias Vicky and had recovered opium from him. After completing investigation of the said case. When the police party reached near Microscope Chowk, Gauri Shankar the present appellant was seen coming from the side of Prince Hotel. He was carrying a bag (Ex. P1) on his left shoulder. On the pointing out of the said Bikram Singh accused, the present appellant was apprehended. On search 10 Kilograms of opium was recovered from his bag. He could not produce any permit or licence for keeping the said contraband in his possession. 250 grams of the opium out of the aforesaid 10 Kgs. was separated as sample. The sample and the remaining bulk were sealed in separate parcels with the seal 'NR' and were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex. PA, attested by ASI Jaimal Singh, ASI Norata Ram and Nasib Singh Sarpanch. Ruqqa Ex. PB was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PB/1 was registered in the concerned police station. Rough site plan Ex. PC was also prepared at the spot. All the other legal formalities were completed at the spot. On return to the police station, the sealed parcels were deposited with MHC Som Nath. The report of the Chemical Examiner indicated that the substance of the sample was opium. Consequently, the appellant was challaned in this case.

(3.) I have heard Mr. P.S. Sullar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjeev Sheokand, AAG, Haryana. With their assistance I have perused the entire record minutely.