LAWS(RAJ)-2002-3-109

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHANTI AND ANRS.

Decided On March 08, 2002
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Appellant
V/S
Shanti And Anrs. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, in sessions case No. 37/89.

(2.) According to the prosecution story, on 18.1.89 the SHO Police Station, Pilibanga received a secret information which was recorded in Ex.P/8. According to the information, the respondent Smt. Shanti and her son Darshan alongwith her husband Shankar Lal were habitually indulging in the sale and purchase of opium and Smt Shanti was expected to come with opium near Chungi Chowki No. 2. On this information, the SHO alongwith other police personnel reached near the Chungi Chowki No. 2, in the township of Pilibanga. At about 1.45 p.m. Smt. Shanti approached the place with a bag in her hand. She was stopped and searched and the bag yielded opium weighing 10 kgs. A sample weighing 50 gms. was separated and was sealed on the spot. She was arrested and was taken to the police station. She further gave an information to the effect that more opium was placed in her residential house. This information was also recorded and Smt. Shanti produced more opium weighing 20 kgs. Another sample of 50 gms. was taken out the said material and was sealed. Shankar Lal was also arrested in connection with the second recovery of 20 kgs. opium and challan was filed against both the respondents. Shanti was charged for possessing 30 kgs. opium and Shankar Lal was charged for possessing 20 kgs. opium. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty.

(3.) PW-1 Mohan Singh, PW-2 Jogendra Singh, PW-3 Likhma Ram, PW-4 Major Singh, PW-5 Bhanwar Singh and PW-6 Kailash Chand were examined by the prosecution in support of its story. The statements of the accused persons were then recorded under section 313 of the Cr.PC. They denied the whole story and contended that the case was false and they were falsely implicated. Arguments were heard and the judgment Was delivered on 5.1.91, whereby both the appellants were acquitted of the charge. The State has come in appeal.