HANUMAN DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the accused on the file of learned Special Judge, NDPS Case, Chittorgarh bearing case No. 10/98. Learned Special Judge vide judgment dated March 14, 2000 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short `ndps' Act) to suffer R. I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default to further suffer R. I. for one year.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on November 21, 1997, a search was conducted by the Narcotic Department headed by one Madanlal Meena, Superintendent, Central narcotics Bureau, Jhalawar at the residential premises allegedly belonging to the appellant at about 6. 30 A. M. Upon search, opium weighing 3 Kg. 200 gms. including the weight of Degchi was recovered contained in a Degchi covered by a white plastic cloth. Necessary memos were drawn. Appellant was arrested and after usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed and in-due course, the case came up for trial before learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh. Charge under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh. Charge under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as 8 witnesses and got exhibited 16 documents. On hearing the final submissions, learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) THEIR Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Alam Khan vs. Narcotics Control Bureau & Another (supra) indicated para 9 which reads as under:- " Prosecution did not bother to produce any independent evidence to establish that the appellant was the owner of the flat in question by producing documents from concerned Registrar's office or by examining the neighbours. No statement has been made by the prosecution that in spite of the efforts taken by them, they could not produce the document or examine the neighbours to prove the ownership of the appellant relating to the flat in question. It is relevant to note here that two independent witnesses attested the panchnama. Only one of them was examined as P. W. 5 who did not support the prosecution version and therefore was treated as hostile. In this case except the retracted statements of the appellant to connect the appellant with the house in question, no other independent evidence is available to sustain the finding of the learned Special Judge extracted in the beginning and confirmed by the High Court. " In para No. 11 of the said judgment, their Lordships observed that. " we hold that the prosecution failed to establish the ownership of the flat in question as belonging to the appellant and consequently the conviction and sentence challenged in this appeal cannot be sustained. "