RAJU MUNIM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED appellant Raju Munim @ Rajendra Singh Meena has been convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge, N. D. P. S. Cases, Jhalawar, vide its judgment and order dated 4. 6. 2001, in Sessions Case No. 22/2000, under Section 8/21 of the N. D. P. S. Act, 1985 (for short, `the Act'), to 12 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's additional rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) RELEVANT facts, in brief, for disposal of this appeal are that Sub Inspector, Police Station, Bhawanimandi, lodged First Information Report at Police Station Bhawanimandi, on 29. 6. 2000, wherein it was alleged that he received a secret information from one informer and on that basis he reached at Tagar crossing. He directed Constable Ramesh Chand to bring two independent and respectable inhabitants of the concerned locality to attend and witness the search. He found one person of a description as stated by the informer. On asking, he disclosed his name as Raju Munim @ Rajendra S/o Heera Lal. Meanwhile Constable Ramesh Chand came back and told that no inhabitant of the locality is willing to attend and witness the search and seizure against the smuggler. Thereafter he directed two Constables Ram Prasad and Latoor Lal to attend and witness the search and seizure. He apprised the accused with his right about his search either before Magistrate or before Gazetted Officer. The accused gave his consent in writing of his search by him. Thereafter a search was conducted in presence of the witnesses. The contraband `smack', weighing 105 gram with two polythene bags, was recovered from the possession of the accused. 5 Gram smack was taken as estimated weigh of polythene bag. The net weigh of smack was 100 gram. He took two samples of 10 gram each and remaining 80 gram smack was sealed in packet. After investigation of the matter, charge-sheet was submitted in the case against the accused. The case was committed for trial to the Trial Court.

(3.) HE also contended that the contraband recovered in the present case was not produced in the court, therefore, it could not be identified by the prosecution witnesses nor it could be corroborated by the FSL Report. The contraband was not exhibited in the present case. HE also contended that sample taken in the present case on 29. 6. 2000 was not sent immediately for chemical examination but it was sent to FSL after a delay of 27 days, which is clear from Exhibit P-12, the receipt dated 26. 7. 2000 of FSL.