GAJANAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The accused-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.10.2010 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Chhabra, District Baran in Sessions Case No. 163/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 8/18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" and has been sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo four months rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 8/18 of the Act on the premise that on 7.10.2006 when search was conducted by SHO, Police Station Chhipa Barod, District Baran in the presence of two independent witnesses narcotic drug opium weighing 500 grams was recovered from the possession of the appellant contained in a white polythene bag which was concealed in a bag and at the time of recovery the appellant was not having any valid license or permit. In this regard FIR No.307/2006 for offence under Section 8/18 of the Act was registered at Police Station Chhipa Barod, District Baran. To prove the charge, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegation and the evidence of the prosecution and specifically stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case by the reason that some altercation took place between him and some police personnels and the police personnels forcely took him from his house on 6.10.2006. The appellant produced oral evidence in his defence. The trial Court after appreciating and evaluating the evidence produced on behalf of the respective parties and hearing both of them arrived at the conclusion that contraband was recovered from the possession of the appellant without any valid license or permit. It was also concluded that compliance of every mandatory provision of the Act was made by the Recovery and Seizure Officer during investigation. Therefore, on the basis of conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court the appellant was convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment and order in the manner as has been stated hereinabove. Hence, the instant appeal.