JASSA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.3.1991 passed by the learned A.D.J. No. 3, Kota in Criminal Appeal No. 37/88, whereby he rejected accused petitioners appeal and upheld the judgment dated 20-8-1986 of the learned A. C.J.M. No. 2, Kota, whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence u/s. 4/9 of the Opium Act, 1878 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months together with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo S.I. for four months.

(2.) Stated in succinct the relevant facts are that on 8.3.1980, PW Bhopal Singh, Narcotics Inspector apprehended the petitioner at Roadways Bus Stand, Kota in the presence of motbirs and conducted a search where upon 2.3 Kgms. opium was recovered from his bag. It is alleged that a sample of 430 gms. of opium was taken, there from and was duly sealed. Thereafter, the said Inspector brought the petitioner before the S.H.O., P.S., Naya Pura, Kota and submitted written report Ex. P. 5, whereupon a case was registered u/sec. 4/9 of the Opium Act. After investigation, challan was filed in the court of learned A.C.J.M. NO.2 Kota. The petitioner denied the indictment. After trial, the learned trial Magistrate by his judgment dated 20.8.1986 found the petitioner guilty for the offence u/s. 4/9 of the Opium Act and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. The learned AddI. Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota rejected petitionerTs appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Mahendra Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.A. Khan, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record of the lower Court in extensor. The short point canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that in this case, neither the alleged F.S.L. report was admitted in evidence nor the same was proved by any prosecution witness nor the contents thereof were read over, explained and put to the petitioner while recording his plea u/s. 313 Cr. P.C. and, as such, there is not a shred of evidence to prove that the alleged material recovered from the possession of the petitioner was opium. Mr. Mahendra Singh has further contended that in this case, the link evidence to the effect that the seals of the sample remained intact till the sample reached the Forensic Science Laboratory is also conspicuously missing and that the learned lower courts have ignored this material and significant infirmity in this case and committed grave illegality in convicting the petitioner.