ROOP LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh dt. 31. 10. 95 whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant for the offence u/sec. 8 read with 18 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as `the Act') and sentenced him to to 10 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default of payment of fine to undergo 2 years further R. I.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 1. 11. 93 at about 2. 15 P. M. P. W. 14 Uma Kant Bhatt the then Dy. Superintendent of Police, Begun received a secret information, that one person is sitting in the waiting room at the bus stand with one Maroon colour ragajine bag containing opium. It was also learnt that the said person is waiting for his companion to arrive. This information was noted down as Memo Ex. P-12, and a copy was sent to the Superintendent of Police vide Ex. P-13 and he proceeded with requisite force to the bus stand, there he found the appellant sitting with the bag. The prosecution case further is that the name of the accused was asked, then he was given a notice in writing u/s. 50 of the Act, and on his opting for being searched by the party itself, he was searched, and on the search of the bag it was found to be containing two bags tied with jute string containing black colour substance which was smelt and tasted by the party and found to be opium. On weighment each bag weighed 1 kg. Thereafter samples was extracted from each of the bag and the remainder was again duly sealed. The accused police station, Begun. After completing investigation, including obtaining necessary reports from the Forensic Laboratory confirming the substance recovered to be opium, the challan was filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment, instead of rasing many points, has argued with all vehemence that in this case the mandatory requirements of Sec. 50 of the Act have not at all been complied with, and thereby entire prosecution is bad and the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. Elaborating the argument, the learned counsel took me through the relevant parts of the statements of P. W. 1, 2, 5, 9 & 14 so also P. W. 11, and the relevant parts of the memo/ notice Ex. D-1, and also to Ex. P-1 being the seizure memo, for the purpose of showing the recitals inrespect of compliance of Sec. 50. By taking me through all these oral as well as documentary evidence the learned counsel contended that it is not at all established on record that any option was at all given to the appellant as required by Sec. 50 of the Act, and the document Ex. D-1 is a mere concoction. It is also contended that even even the document Ex. D-1, the oral evidence that has been produced by the prosecution, is so materially discrepant that it does not establish as a fact that the appellant was at all given any option as contemplated by Sec. 50. Learned counsel placed reliance on Namdi Francis Nwazor vs. Union of India (1) Prakash Singh vs. State of Raj. (2), Ahmed vs. State of Gujarat (3), State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh (4), Koluttumottil Razak vs. State of Kerala (5) and Kalu Singh vs. State of Rajasthan