RAM GOPAL & ANR. Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.06.2008 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara, whereby the learned Judge has convicted Ram Gopal for offence under Sec. 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act ('the Act', for short) and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and has imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 and has further directed him to undergo one and a half years of simple imprisonment in default thereof.

(2.) The learned Judge has also convicted Sohan Bai @ Sunita, appellant No.2, for offence under Sec. 8/18 of the Act; he has sentenced her to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 and further directed her to undergo a term of one and a half years of simple imprisonment in default thereof. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.07.2001, M.C. Vijay (P.W.3) left with a police party for checking the transportation of contraband drugs on the Ajmer Bye-pass on the Devli road. The police party intercepted the vehicles near Santosh Bhojnalay on Devli Road, near the Ajmer Bye-pass. Around 10:40 PM, a bus, belonging to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, bearing Registration No.RJ-20C-7197, was intercepted. P.C. Meena (P.W.2), Sub-Inspector introduced himself to the bus driver, Ramswaroop (P.W.1) and Jaikaran. He informed them that the police would like to check the passengers sitting in the bus. Niranjan Guru (P.W.4), Inspector and P.C. Meena (P.W.2), after giving their personal search, entered the bus. Since they found a lady and a man sitting on seat Nos. 19 & 20, behaving suspiciously, P.C. Meena (P.W.2) asked them to get down from the bus. The lady was also accompanied with a four years old child. They were first asked their names. They told their names as Ramgopal and Sunita. She claimed that child was hers. Prior to carrying out the personal search, P.C. Meena (P.W.2) gave them a notice under Sec. 50 of the Act and informed them about the twin options under Sec. 50 of the Act. They also informed them that M.C. Vijay (P.W.3) is a gazetted officer. Both the appellants gave their consent to be searched before M.C. Vijay (P.W.3) Initially, Ram Gopal was searched. However, no contraband drugs were discovered from his personal search. Subsequently, Sajjan Devi (P.W.5) took Sunita to a room of Santosh Bhojanalay and searched her. She discovered that Sunita had tied a piece of cloth on her private parts, which was carrying a polythene packet. Thereupon, Sajjan Devi (P.W.5) came out of the room and informed M.C. Vijay (P.W.3) about the said discovery. According to his instructions, she went inside and recovered the loincloth. When the loincloth was searched, it was discovered that it contains a polythene packet containing a liquid. The liquid was discovered to be opium. The packet contained 2.550 Kgs., of opium. Out of the said packet, two samples of 25 gms., were taken and were sealed. Subsequently, after completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against Ram Gopal and Sunita for offences under Sectiions 8/18 and 8/29 of the Act.

(3.) In order to support its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and submitted twenty documents. However, the defence did not examine any witnesses, but did submit few documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 14.06.2002, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this court.