MAKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5th July, 2001/order of sentence dated 9th July, 2001 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2-1/2 years, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) THE facts in brief of the prosecution case are that on 30th August, 2000, Assistant Sub Inspector Udey Ram among other police officials happened to be present at T-point Adampur on Bhadra road near the college of Mandi Adampur where Chhotu Ram PW met him. When he was chattering with him, in the meantime, the accused was spotted coming from the side of Bani with a bag on his head. On catching sight of the police party, he turned back, which aroused suspicion in the mind of the aforesaid ASI, who intercepted the accused and served notice Ex. PB upon him. Vide reply Ex. PB/1, the accused reposed confidence in the aforesaid ASI. On search of the bag, the contents were found to be poppy husk, out of which 200 grams were drawn to serve as a sample, which was converted into a parcel. The remainder when weighed came to 19 kgs. 800 grams, which was also made into a parcel. Thereafter, both the parcels were sealed with seal bearing impression 'MP' and were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PC. The specimen seal impression was also prepared. Ruqa Ex.PD was also sent to the police station, where on its basis formal FIR Ex. PD/1 was recorded. The rough site plan showing the place of recovery was prepared. The accused was arrested. The accused alongwith the witnesses and the case property were produced before Devender Kumar, Sub Inspector/Station House Officer, who after verifying the facts from the witnesses, affixed his seal 'DK' on the sample as well as the residue and made his endorsement. The case property and the samples were deposited with MHC Suresh Kumar.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with due care and circumspection.