BHUSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED -appellant was indicted, convicted and sentenced under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act) for keeping in his possession 2 Kgs of opium without a licence on May 21,1986.

(2.) THE adumbrated facts of the case are that on May 21, 1986, ASI Puran Chand along with ASI Amar Nath and other police officials was going on excise checking to village Bakali in a Matador. When they reached near Sanjay Gandhi Memorial School at Ladwa, they noticed the accused going on foot, carrying a bag. On seeing the Police party, the accused took to his heels towards the ground of the school. Puran Chand PW-2 got the Matador stopped, chased the accused and caught him. He and Amar Nath offered their personal search. On suspicion his personal search was taken. The bag which he was carrying was found to contain 2 Kgs of opium wrapped in a wax paper. 100 grams were taken out as a sample, which was sealed separately and the remainder was sealed separately. The seal of 'AN' was used. After use seal was handed over to Amar Nath ASI Thereafter usual investigation was conducted. Recoveries were made, FIR was registered, site plan was also prepared and after concluding the investigation at the spot, the seized contraband along with the sample and the accused were brought to the police station. The seized contraband and the sample were deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station Ladwa. The sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Haryana, Karnal, for analysis on May 28, 1986. On analysis, it was found to contain opium. On these facts, charge under section 17 of the Act was framed against the accused, who denied the guilt and claimed trial.

(3.) ACCUSED -appellant had taken a plea that on that date the police party searched the house of his sister's husband's brother Prita in village Chand and recovered the contraband therefrom. Prita ran away. The police party pressurised him to produce Prita. As he could not produce Prita, he had been falsely implicated in this case. He has examined Kehar Singh DW-1 and Roop Ram DW-2 in his defence.