STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has arisen in the following manner.

(2.) EXCISE Inspector, Phalodi, namely, Khanusingh P. W. 4 and EXCISE Inspector Banwanlal P. W. 1 checked the field of Sohansingh respondent in village Chhoti Sewaki, Tehsil Osian on April 4, 1970, and found that he was cultivating the field in collaboration with respondent Kumbha Ram and they had grown poppy. There were 2600 plants in the field which were uprooted and taken in possession in the presence of witnesses Sukhram P. W. 2 and Lalu P. W. 3. The accused were also arrested and forwarded to the police. The poppy plants were got chemically examined and were found to be positive for opium by the Assistant Director, Chemical Section, Police Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. When the challan was put up before the learned Magistrate, it was stated that it was for offence under section 9 of the Opium Act. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phalodi, charged the two respondents under the aforesaid section on the allegation that they had grown poppy in an unlawful manner. The learned Magistrate, after recording the evidence, however, acquitted the accused on the ground that the opium plants were not proved to have been seized from the possession of the accused. He accepted the argument advanced on behalf of the accused that if the field belongs to Sohansingh, then no offence was made out against Kumbha Ram. If, on the other hand, it was held that the field was being cultivated by Kumbha Ram, then no case was made out against Sohansingh- He also believed the statements of the defence witnesses Uma Ram D. W. 1, Fateh Singh D. W. 2 and Ramuram D. W. 3 that the field was being cultivated not by Kumbha Ram but by Umaram D. W. 1 and that on the alleged day of raid, no EXCISE Inspector had ever come to the field or had collected the opium plants. In this manner the learned Magistrate found that the prosecution case was doubtful and consequently he acquitted the accused. Hence the State's appeal.