MITHU SINGH @ MAHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.9.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 32/2004, whereby, he convicted accused appellant Mithu Singh O Maha Singh for offence under Sec. 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to twelve years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,20,000.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Facts leading to the present appeal are that on 28.7.2004, S.H.O. Sita Ram of Police Station Sangaria along with police party went for petrolling. At about 5.40 P.M., he received a secret information at Malarampura Bus Stand that appellant Mithu Singh @ Maha Singh is doing business of poppy husk in his dhani at Chak 9 KSD. He thereupon prepared Memo Ex. P-14 for sending to his superior officer through Ex.P-15 and after informing motbirs, he' reached at the dhani of accused appellant. A notice was given to him under Sec. 50 of the Act and 16 bags of poppy husk were recovered. The total quantity of poppy husk was 540 kgs. He took samples of 500 gms from each bag and after preparing recovery memo Ex.P-4, registered F.I.R. Ex.P-17 and arrested the accused appellant and prepared the site plan Ex.P-18 and prior to it send the progress to his superior officer vide Ex.P-19. After investigation about samples etc. for chemical examination, challan was filed. Accused was charged for offence under Sec. 8/15 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Statement of accused under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. was recorded. After hearing, the learned trial judge convicted the accused appellant as indicated above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the accused appellant has assailed the judgment of the learned trial Court mainly on two grounds. Firstly, accordingly to him, there was no conscious possession of the accused appellant on the dhani, from where the recovery has been made, which according to him was belonging to his brother Harnam Singh. Secondly, he has questioned about the validity of the search and seizure on account of non compliance of Sections 42 and 57 of the Act and relied upon certain citations, which will be referred later on.