AKHA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed judgment dated 5th May, 1988 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Barmer whereby the accused Appellant was convicted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that when on 14.7.1987, SHO, Police Station, Bijrad on receiving an information proceeded to the residence of Hemaram S/o Idanram Jat, resident of Shobhala Ki Dhani, a person from the Dhani having been seen the police party, who were in uniform tried to run away from Dhani of Hemaram. He was intercepted by the police party and asked to disclose his name. He mentioned his name Aharam S/o Shri Bagaram Jat, resident of Shobhala Ki Dhani. When he was asked to give the reason why he wanted to run away, he stated that he was in possession of opium. Constable Jogendra Singh thereupon called Heeralal and Champaram as Motbir and asked Ajaram in their presence about the opium. He from his Tevte Ki Kut (an silver ornament, which is hollow from Inside-which the men wear around neck) took a white polythene packet. When this packet was opened it was found to contain a black substance on smelling and testing this was discovered as opium. When Akharam was asked to produce the licence, he could not produce the same. On weighing the opium the same was found to be 400 grams, out of which, 30 grams was separated in a small cotton bag and remaining opium was also separated in the another cotton bag. Akharam was arrested and regular case against him for offence under Section 17 and 18 of the NDPS Act was registered. On completion of Investigation, Challan was filed against him Sections 17 and 18 of the NDPS Act.

(3.) The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case. The defence did not examine any witness. After conclusion of trial the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Barmer by his judgment finally convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated above, hence, this appeal.