SUKHPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal has been filed by the accused -appellant Sukhpal, under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 17.3.1990, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar, in Session Case No. 896/1989, whereby he convicted the accused -appellant for offence under Section8/15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment with Rs. one lac as fine and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, which is the minimum sentence provided under the Act. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.3.1989, Mani Ram the S.H.O., Police Station, Chunagarh alongwith police personnels namely; Harmeet Singh, Krishna Singh, Sugan Singh and Om Prakash were on search of accused and goods in another case bearing No. 16/1989 for offence u/Sec. 379 I.P.C. At around 5.00 P.M. when they reached Chak 1 -BB, during patrolling, the S.H.O. was informed by the informer that the accused is selling Poppy Husk' in his grocery shop. Upon receiving the information, the police party along with independent witnesses namely; Hakam Singh and Teja Singh reached at the shop where the accused was found present. In the presence of aforesaid independent witnesses, a search was made in the shop and in the process, a small tin (pipi) containing poppy husk was found for which the accused was not having licence. The weight of the poppy husk was found to be 1 Kg. out of which, 250 grams of poppy husk was taken as a sample and the same was separately packed and sealed. The rest poppy husk weighing 750 grams was also packed and sealed. Thereafter, the accused -appellant was arrested on the spot and a First information Report was registered after reaching Police Station. In compliance of Sec. 57 of the Act, an information was sent to the Superior Officer and necessary memos were drawn. The sealed sample was sent to F.S.L. for examination for obtaining its report. After all the necessary investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the accused -appellant.

(2.) THE learned Session Judge, Sriganganagar framed charge against the accused under the provision of Section 8/15 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and pleaded for trial. To prove the charge, the prosecution adduced both oral as well as documentary evidence. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 1973. The Court below, after having heard both the side, passed the judgment of conviction and sentence as aforesaid.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant while challenging the aforesaid impugned judgment of conviction and sentence put forth following submissions: -