RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the aforesaid appeals have been filed by the appellants against a common judgment dated 5th April, 2007, passed by Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 30/2005, where by the accused appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 8 / 25 of NDPS Act, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment:

(2.) Against the said judgment of conviction dated 5.4.2007, these two appeals have been preferred by the accused appellants.

(3.) Learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Harendra Singh, and Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellant have contended that finding of the learned trial court is against the fact and material on record and therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. They have further contended that the trial court has erred in law in not correctly appreciating the evidence on record particularly where and in which field the contraband article was found. They have further drawn the attention of this court on the statement of PW-3 Bheru Lal Patwari, who has stated that the land bearing Khasra No. 39 is situated in the vicinity of village Modi and as per Ex. P. 13, land is situated in village Modi. The said land is in the khatedari of Bhanwar Singh S/o. Swaroop Singh and not in the khatedari of Ram Singh S/o. Bhanwar Singh, as mentioned in Ex.-D/1, site plan. Further they have drawn the attention of this Court on Ex. P-12 and P-13 and contended that as per these documents, the land bearing khasra no. 39 measuring 4 bigha 17 biswa is in the khatedari of Bhanwar Singh S/o. Swaroop Singh. They have further contended that there is a contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses. The investigation officer has violated the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act, hence the impugned judgment be set-aside and accused appellants be acquitted. In the alternate, they have prayed that if this Court is not going to acquit the appellants, in such circumstances, they are not challenging the conviction and sentence part of the judgment of the court below, but they are only requesting to this Court that sentence awarded to the appellants to further undergo two years' SI in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, should be reduced from two years' to six months because the appellants are in judicial lock up since 21.5.2005; the appellants are not the habitual offenders; they are in old age and they are the poor persons.