VIJAY MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the State.

(2.) The present Criminal Appeal has been filed under Ss. 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) against the judgment dtd. 24/5/2006 and sentence dtd. 26/5/2006 in Sessions Trial No.243 of 1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Biharsarif, Nalanda (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court), wherein the appellant has been convicted under Sec. 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as N.D.P.S. Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and was also imposed with fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 and in default of which the appellant has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.

(3.) The brief facts of the case as per the prosecution is that on 25/3/1987, Dinesh Chandra Gupta (P.W.5), SubInspector of Excise, along with Sri S.S. Srivastava, Executive Magistrate, on secret information, visited and recovered 1800 opium plants from the alleged field of appellant at Asha Nagar, Biharsarif and also from nearby two plots 500 and 2000 opium plants respectively were recovered. The informant prepared seizure lists in presence of three witnesses detailing the recovery of opium plants from all three fields. Thereafter, the samples of the opium plants were taken and sealed in packets. A complaint to the learned C.J.M., Biharsarif was presented with seizure lists, application to destroy the opium plants and also the permission to send the sample for chemical examination was sought. The learned C.J.M., Biharsarif at Nalanda ordered to register the complaint and allowed the said applications for destruction of seized opium plants and chemical examination of the said sample. Upon completion of the investigation, it was found that 1800 opium plants recovered on 25/3/1987 from Khata No. 222, Plot No. 375, Area 21 decimals, belonged to Vijay Mahto-appellant herein. Subsequently, a prosecution report was submitted before the learned C.J.M. 17/7/1987 under Sec. 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act against the appellant/accused.