MOOL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31. 5. 93, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused-appellant Mool Chand for the offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced him to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo 21/2 months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) APPELLANT Mool Chand was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, for the offences under Sections 17 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the Act ). The case of the prosecution is that on 21. 2. 90, Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr. Murlidhar received a secret information through PW 6 Arjun Singh that accused Mool Chand is engaged in the sale of opium in his shop and he is not having any valid licence for the same. Mr. Murlidhar entered this information in the Roznamcha and thereafter, alongwith PW 8 Hanuman Ram, Constables PW 6 Arjun Singh, Pep Singh, Shaitan Singh and Head Constable Punjraj Singh went to the "shiv General Store" the shop of the appellant. The accused-appellant was present there. The Motbir witnesses were called and after giving his own search to the Motbir, Murli Dhar entered the shop of the accused. As soon as the accused saw him, he put a bag in the underground pond (Tanka), which was taken out from the underground pond which contained two small polythene bags containing 3. 650 kgs. of opium. Out of the samples weighing 30 grams each were taken. Both the samples as well as the remaining opium were separately sealed and recovery memos were prepared. The accused was arrested and thereafter the samples were sent for chemical examination, which, on chemical examination, were found containing morphine and was found to be opium. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW 1 Nakhat Singh, PW 2 Kesra Ram, PW 3 Hem Singh, PW 4 Narpat Dan, PW 5 Prem Raj, PW 6 Arjun Singh, PW 7 Purshottam Das, PW 8 Hanuman Ram and PW 9 Murlidhar. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, acquitted the accused-appellant of the offence under Section 17 of the Act but convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 18 of the Act, as stated above.