MUNNALAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the accused Munnalal against a judgment dated 6.3.2002 by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act cases, Pratapgarh whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 100,000/- has been awarded. On account of non- payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for two and half years has been ordered.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution story, the SHO, Police Station, Pratapgarh PW/1 Amar Singh on 19.11.2000 received a confidential information from some informer to the effect that the appellant Munnalal was likely to come from Village 'Morjar' toward 'Machlana' near Hanumanveli with opium. The information was recorded and thereafter, the said SHO conducted a 'Nakabandi' in the presence of independent 'motbirs' PW/3 Mukand and PW/8 Badri Das. At about 11.30 a.m., the accused came from the side of village Morjar with a bag in his hand. He was stopped by the police party. After serving him a notice under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the bag was searched which yielded opium weighing 4.200 Kgs. The accused was arrested, was taken to the police station and a case was registered. Ultimately, he was put to trial in the said Court. He pleaded not guilty. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution and none was examined in defence. The accused in his statement stated that he was lifted from his house by the police and was implicated falsely. The learned trial Court then heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 6.3.2002 as stated supra. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) PW /1 Amar Singh, SHO, PW/2 Pratap Singh and PW/6 Jamna Lal both Head Constables, PW/4 Mahendra Singh and PW/5 Laxman Constables have corroborated the prosecution story of the effect that the opium-in-question was recovered from the possession of the appellant. However, there is no independent corroboration of the alleged recovery and PW/3 Mukand as well as PW/8 Badri Das both have denied that any recovery was effected from the appellant in their presence.