BHERULAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was accused on the file of learned Special Judge NDPS Cases Chittorgarh bearing Sessions Case No. 22/01. The learned Special Judge vide judgment dated August 7, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. one lac, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Meaningful question arises for consideration in the instant appeal is as to whether Inspector or Sub- Inspector of Police who is not posted as Station House Officer is empowered to exercise the power under Section 43 of the NDPS Act.

(2.) BRIEF resume of the case is that Rameshwar Prasad (PW.9) who as posted as Station House Officer at Police Station Chittorgarh on April 4, 2001 had to attend a meeting summoned by the Superintendent of Police in connection with law and order problem. Around 5.30 PM Rameshwar Prasad handed over charge to Praveen Vyas, Sub-Inspector (PW.2) and proceeded to attend the meeting. Entry was incorporated in Rajnamcha Ex.P-24 in this regard. Praveen Vyas thereafter on receiving secret information about illegal possession of opium went to the spot where the appellant was allegedly found carrying opium weighing 6 kg. (two packets of 3 kg. each). Recovery memo (Ex.P-3 of opium and motor cycle was drawn at 8.00 PM. The appellant was arrested and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. Charge under Section 8/18 NDPS Act was framed. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as eleven witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant claimed innocence. Two witnesses were examined (by) the defence. The learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and canvassed that the objection raised on behalf of the appellant is devoid of merit since the appellant was found possessing opium illegally.