AYUB Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant-Ayub Khan against the judgment dated 13-7-2001 of the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. cases, Pratapgarh whereby the appellant-Ayub Khan was found guilty under Ss. 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Subtances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the N.D.P.S. Act") and was awarded 10 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00. For non-payment of fine, he has been ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonmnet for a period of 2 years.

(2.) The prosecution story in brief, is that on 27-1-1999 the S.H.O. of Police Station, Arnod, District Chittorgarh P.W. 11 Anil Joshi at 3.00 p.m. received a secret information to the effect that the accused-Ayub Khan was likely to go towards village Devaldi from village Kotri via bus stand Faredi with illicit opium. The information was recorded in the "Rojnamcha" as Ex. P/20 and the S.H.O. proceeded to effect a "Nakabandi" at a place between village Devaldi and the bus stand, Faredi where the accused was expected to come. At about 4.15 p.m. the accused appeared at the place of the "Nakabandi" and was stopped. He was given the option under S. 50 of the said Act to get himself searched in the presence of a Magistrate or some Gazetted Officer, if he so liked. He, however, agreed to be searched by the police people. The search allegedly yielded opium weighing 500 gm. Two samples each containing 30 gms. opium were separated and sealed on the spot. The recovery memo and other documents were prepared, the accused was arrested and the FIR was lodged at Police Station, Arnod, against the appellant and the co-accused-Lal Singh from whom the opium in question was allegedly purchased by the appellant. During the course of investigation Lal Singh was also arrested and a challan was filed against both the accused persons in the said Court. However, an order of discharge was passed in respect of the co-accused-Lal Singh on 3-8-1999 and a charge under S. 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act was framed against the appellant. He pleaded not guilty. As many as twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its story. No defence evidence was led by the accused. The learned trial Court heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 13-7-2001 as stated above against which this appeal has been filed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and I find that the appeal is fit to be allowed.