ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIL Kumar son of Suraj Pal resident of Kacha Katra District Sehjanpur (Uttar Pradesh) stands convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide impugned judgment dated 10.1.95 under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and has been sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two years.

(2.) THE charge against the appellant is that he was allegedly carrying a bag on this shoulder contained 4 kgs of opium on 25.4.1992 near bus stand Panipat. SI Anoop Singh PW4 the then Incharge Police Post, Bus Stand, Panipat alongwith other police officials had apprehended the appellant on suspicion. For the purpose of effecting recovery PW1 Bal Kishan Ex-Sarpanch resident of Village Baroli, was also joined in the police party. A notice Ex. PA in order to comply with the provisions of section 50 of the Act was also served upon the appellant who expressed his desire to be searched by SI Anoop Singh himself. Thereafter in the presence of PW1 Bal Kishan and PW2 Dhan Raj the bag Ex.P1 of the appellant was searched and on search it was found to contain pippi Ex.P2 containing opium weighing 4 kgs. One sample of 100 grams was separated. The remainder Ex. P3 was put in the pippi Ex.P2. Sample packet and the pippi Ex.P 2 containing remainder opium Ex.P3 were separately sealed with the seals 'AS'and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PB. After completing the necessary legal formalities ruqa Ex.PD was sent to the Police Station City Panipat on the basis of which FIR Ex.PD/1 was recorded. Statement of witnesses were also prepared. The case property was then deposited with the MHC of the concerned police station. As per report Ex.PF of Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, it was found opium. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was charged under section 18 of the Act.

(3.) THE stand taken by the appellant as emerges from his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. is of false implication in this case. However, no defence evidence has been produced.