KESAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant seeks to set aside the judgment dated March 23, 2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Bhilwara whereby the appellant was convicted under Ss. 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short N.D.P.S. Act, 1985) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 /-, in default of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment of six months.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that Naka Bandi was conducted under the direction of the District Opium Officer, Bhilwara on January 9, 1993 on the Bhilwara Chittorgarh Road, around 5.30 p.m. a truck was checked. On being inquired, it was found that appellant was driver of the truck and one Harnek Singh was Khalasl who disclosed that opium in a polythene bag was concealed under the rear seat of the Driver. Search was conducted by Prakash Saxena and opium in polythene bag weighing 5 kgs. was found in the tool box. Two samples of 24 grams each were taken out and sealed. The truck was taken to the District Opium Officer and the investigation was conducted by P. K. Sinha. Samples were sent for chemical examination on January 11, 1993 and from the chemical report, it was revealed that seized contraband was opium. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and the co-accused-Harnek Singh. Harnek Singh on being released on bail absconded and the case was proceeded against the appellant alone. Charge under Ss. 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act was framed against the appellant who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as six witnesses. The accused pleaded innocence in his statement recorded under S. 313, Cr. P.C. No witness in defence was however examined. On hearing the final submissions learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the appellant no case is made out against the appellant since the sample seized, was not the same, which was analysed in the chemical report. As per the prosecution case the sample was taken in a cigarette box and got sealed, but the sample received for chemical examination at Government Opium and Alkaloid Works, Neemach (M.P.) packed in plastic bag. Per contra, learned counsel for the Union of India supported the impugned judgment and canvassed that the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is technical in nature. If any mistake appears on the chemical report, it is bona fide and should not be viewed seriously.