UMMED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of trial court dated 9.11.1994 whereby the trial court has convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo 10 yearsT rigorous imprisonment and also pay fine Rs. one lac, in default of payment of fine, further undergo 2 year's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) On 31.3.1993, one Ranglal was apprehended by the officials of Narcotic Department and from his possession 2 kg. opium has been recovered. At that point of time, Ranglal furnished the information that he was going to hand over this Opium to one Maniram and appellant. On this information, the S.P. Central Bureau of Narcotics, Kota has issued search authorisation warrant to Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Inspector. On 2.4.1993 at 11.00 p.m. Mahesh Kumar along with staff and police officials went to Jhunjhunu and on 3.4.1993, the house of the appellant was searched. During search, appellant was found in the house. The house was in joint possession of accused appellant and Maniram (brother of accused). Mahesh Kumar asked the appellant whether he wants to search his house by any Magistrate or gazetted officer, but the appellant agreed that he has no objection if the house is searched by Inspector. On that the search was conducted and in a kachha chappar house, a polythene bag containing 6.850 kg. opium was found. That was seized, sample was taken the same was sealed and sent for F.S.L. report. The site plan was prepared, statements of witnesses were also recorded and thereafter the challan has been filed. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and statement of accused has been recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Considering the material on record, the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of trial court, the accused appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Mr. Bin Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has mainly emphasised on the fact that Investigating Officer and complainant is one and the same person, therefore, the investigation is not fair and even some witnesses have not supported the site plan. Recovery witnesses have been declared hostile. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the judgment of trial court.