BHARTA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.3.1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Barmer convicting thereby the accused appellant for offence under section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (in short 'the Act of 1985) and sentencing him to' undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment whereof, to further undergo the year's Rigorous Imprisonment.

(2.) The factual matfix of the case is that on. 25th February, 1986 at about 12:30 I_M. Shri Banedan, S.H.O. of Police Station, Chauhatan alongwith Leela Dhar, H.C. and Uttama Ram constable and other police party went on patrolling duty. Upon reaching outskirts of village Dhok Dhoniya at about 5 p.m., they laid "Nakabandi" during which they noticed one person coming from village Dharasar. On seeing the police party, the said person left the road and started moving towards other side. The police suspected his conduct and therefore intercepted him. On enquiry being made, he disclosed his name as Bharta Ram s/o Ganesh Ram Jat s/o Dharasar. On being searched, a plastic bag containing some black substance was found from,left pocket of his coat. When this was tested and smelled, it was found to be opium. Its weight was found to be of 160 gms. He denied having any permit to possess licence of the said opium. Out of total recovered opium, 30 gms was put in a small box which was sealed then and there, Remaining 130 gms of opium was placed in polythene bag and also sealed. On reaching the Police Station, regular criminal case was registered and investigation commenced. Finally challan against the accused-appellant for offence u/-s- 18 of the Act was filed. While prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of his case and exhibited 12 documents, accused in his defence apart from his statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code examined two witnesses. On conclusion of the evidence and upon hearing of the arguments, the learned trial court convicted the accused as mentioned hereinabove. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court the accused appellant has preferred this appeal on various grounds.

(3.) I have heard Mr. R.K. Charan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rameshwar Dave, learned Public Prosecutor for the State in support of their respective case and perused the record.