LAWS(RAJ)-2016-8-83

RAJKUMAR @ DINESH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On August 05, 2016
Rajkumar @ Dinesh Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and sentence dated 13.12.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases No.1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.13/2008, whereby the appellant has been held guilty under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- has been imposed upon him, on non-payment of which, the accused-appellant is required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a secret information was received on 17.08.2007 at 08:00 a.m. that in the morning of 18.08.2007 between 7 to 8:00 a.m. Khangaram and Rajkumar would be carrying 125-130 kgs. of opium in Tractor Trolley bearing registration No. RJ 19 GB 0200. They will be moving from Mangalwad Chouraha towards Neemach. On the basis of this information, the raiding party was constituted at 7:20 a.m. and Tractor Trolley bearing registration No.RJ 19 GB 0200 was seen coming from Mangalwad Chouraha. Khangaram was driving the vehicle and the present appellant Rajkumar was sitting beside him. On search of the vehicle, seven bags containing 125 kgs 765 gms. of opium was recovered.

(3.) After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and Khangaram. The proceedings under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. were kept pending in relation to accused Jeevanlal @ Kalulal, Bhanwarlal and Chainaram. The charge under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act was read over and explained to the present appellant, who denied the charge and sought for trial. Co-accused Bhanwarlal was charged under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. He also denied the charge. Thereafter, the statements of 11 witnesses were recorded by the prosecution. As many as 41 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the present appellant as well as Bhanwarlal were recorded. No defence was produced on behalf of the appellant.