SARIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the judgment dated March 28,1988, passed by the Additional Sesssions Judge, Barmer, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 20(ii) of the Narotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced him to underge 20 years 'rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/ - and in default of payment of fine further to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE accused -appellant Sariya was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, for the offence under Section 20(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that Hamir Singh, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sheo, after receiving the information from some Motbir, left the Police Station alongwith the police party on February 27, 1987, at about 9.45 a.m. to village Dholakiya. In the way, the Station House Officer took Rewant Singh as Motbir from village Jalila Dhani and reached at the house of the accused Sariya. Accused Sariya was present in his house. On search, a gunny -bag was found, which contained 40 packets of Charas, weighing 40 kilograms packed in three different polythene packets. These packets were sealed and on examination, the contents whereof were found Charas. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined seven witnesses, namely, PW 1 Moola Ram, PW 2 Hayat Khan, PW 3 Binjraj, Pw 4 Bhabhoot Singh, PW 5 Narain Singh, PW 6 Hamir Singh and PW 7 Sohan Raj Khandelwal. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and he produced three witnesses, namely DW 1 Lala, DW 2 Mehardeen and DW 3 Kayyum in support of his defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 20[ii] of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. It is against this judgment dated March 28,1388, convicting and sentencing the accused -appellant that the appellant has preferred these two appeals. S.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 286 of 1989 was preferred by the accused -appellant through Jail while S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 1989 has been preferred by the accused -appellant through his counsel.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has challenged the judgment, passed by the learned lower Court, convicting and sentencing the accused, on a number of grounds, but the appeals can be disposed -of only on one point and, therefore, it is not necessary to consider the other points, as stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant.