RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar in Session Case No. 36 of 15.6.1992 under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short' the Act').

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, on May 1,1991 the S.H.O. of Police Station, Jakhal received a secret information that the accused was in possession of opium when the S.H.O. was present near Kudhi head. Then the police party conducted a raid near village Puran Majra. The accused was present with a bag in his hand. Then the accused was told that he has to be searched and whether the accused wanted to be searched by the Sub- Inspector or by Gazetted Officer. As the accused wanted to be searched by a Gazetted Officer, a message was flashed to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Tbhna. Then the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sh. Sudhir Chaudhary came to the spot and the search of the bag carried by the accused was made in the presence of the Assistant Superintendent of Police. The search revealed that the bag contained opium weighing 4 kgs. 50 grams was taken as sample. A report was sent by the S.H.O. to the Police Station on the basis of which the FIR was registered. The sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Madhuban, Karnal who opened that the sample is opium. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, a charge-sheet was filed by the police before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tbhana who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Hissar by his order date 4.6.1992. The learned Sessions Judge, Hissar framed charge against the accused punishable under Section 18 of the Act for being in possession of 4 kgs. 50 gms. of opium on May 1,1991. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed trial. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined in three witnesses and marked documents. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313, Cr PC. The accused pleaded that he was implificated falsely as he had filed a writ petition in the High Court to secure the release of his son Gian Singh and brother Piara Singh who were illegally detained by Jakhal Police. In defence, the accused examined two witnesses. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found that the accused was in possession of 4 kgs. 50 gms. of opium which contained meconic acid and morphine etc. and accordingly, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 18 of the Act and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge the appellant filed the above appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the provisions of the Act, namely Section 50 have not been complied with and the case has been foisted against the accused and, therefore, the accused is entitled to have an order of acquittal in his favour. It is on the other hand contended by the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana that provisions of Section 50 of the Act have been fully complied with an there is no infirmity in the case of the prosecution and the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 clearly proves the guilt of the accused and there are no rounds warranting interference with the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge on the accused- appellant.

(3.) ON a careful consideration of the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 18 of the Act. Under Section 18, the sentence of imprisonment for ten years is mandatory. The learned Sessions Judge imposed the sentence of imprisonment prescribed in the Act. I do not find any grounds warranting interference with the sentence imposed. The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.