MALA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point on which the appeal is being decided does not require detailed discussion of facts and evidence. According to the prosecution on 3.10.1992 at 11 a.m. in Sardar Shahar on the road, 65 gms. of opium was recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant. Thus he was charged for the offence under section 8/18, NDPS Act, After recording the necessary evidence and hearing both the sides, the learned Special Judge NDPS Act Cases, Churu vide his judgment dated 13.6.1995 convicted the appellant for the said offence and sentenced him to a righours imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. one lac.

(2.) Against this conviction and sentence this appeal has been preferred.

(3.) I have heard the arguments of both the sides. In this case it has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the provisions of section 50, NDPS Act have been fully complied with. In the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, and in the case of Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa v. State of Kerala, and in case of Sayyed Mohd v. State of Gujarat, it has been laid down by the Supreme Court that the provisions of section 50 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and noncompliance whereof would vitiate the conviction. In Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosas case, (supra) the Apex Court has observed: