GOPILAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24-7-2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS cases, Chittorgarh, whereby he convicted the accused appellant Gopilal alias Gopu for the offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the act") and sentenced him to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac and in default, to further undergo one year's R. I.

(2.) THE charge against the accused appellant Gopilal alias Gopu was that during the course of raid conducted by Inspector sanjay Kumar Singh, Central Bureau of narcotics, Chittorgarh on 8-5-2001 at 5 p. m. opium measuring 6. 500 kgs. kept in polythene bag was recovered from the grain storage of his house at village Bansen. After observing the formalities of taking sample etc. the challan was filed against the accused under Sec. 8/18 of the Act and he was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P. C. was recorded. He produced five witnesses in his defence and after hearing, the learned Special Judge passed the sentence as above.

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was non-compliance of Section 41 of the Act because the information received by the raiding officer was not reduced to writing and the so called message received was neither signed nor named. He has also contended that the information regarding the opium was about village Kosithal and not Bansen, District chittorgarh, from where the opium has been recovered. In this connection, he has drawn my attention towards Notice Ex. P. 1, wherein the name of village, where the raid was to be effected, is Bansen but the information Ex. P. 2 is about Village Kosithal. The next argument of the learned counsel is that according to Ex. P. 15, the place from where the recovery has been made, is the joint compound of accused and his brothers, which is in village Bansen and not in village koshithal. He has also submitted about non-compliance of Section 55 of the Act, which requires that a person who takes possession of the seized articles, shall affix his seal and take sample and those samples shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the police station but the seal was not deposited in Malkhana. Hence, according to him, the learned Special Judge has wrongly convicted the accused appellant. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on certain decisions of the Hon'ble supreme Court and this Court in Rajendra singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2004. (3) R Cr D 177; Hanuman Das v. Union of india, reported in 2004 (2) Cr. LR (Raj) 1158; mohd. Alam Khan v. Narcotics Control Bureau, reported in 1996 Cr LR (SC) 345 : (1996 Cri LJ 2001) and Kailash v. State of rajasthan, reported in 2006 (3) RDD 1558.