LADU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Barmer, dated 27-1-1988, whereby he convicted the accused appellant Ladu Ram for the offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred-to as "the Act") and sentenced him to 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 allegation against the accused Ladu Ram was that 150 gms of opium was recovered from his Dhani at Village Uparla, Tehsil Chohtan, District Barmer on 29-7-1986 by Deputy S. P. , Chohtan and his party including the S. H. O. , Chohtan. Out of 150 gms. of opium, a sample of 30 gms. was taken, which was sent for chemical examination. THEreafter, the accused was chargesheeted. Learned trial Judge framed the charge under Section 18 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty. THE prosecution examined 8 witnesses. THE statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. After hearing, the learned trial Judge has sentenced him as above.

(3.) ANOTHER point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is about the place of recovery which according to the prosecution witnesses is Ex. D. 1 at place `a' - a hut. This was prepared by the S. H. O. on the basis of the certificate issued by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dhok vide Ex. P-6- The Sarpanch Mobta Ram (PW 5) has stated in his examination-in-chief that he issued certificate Ex. P. 6 but in his cross examination, he has stated that site plan Ex. D. 1 was not of the `dhani' of accused Ladu Ram. When he was re-examined on this point, he further clarified that he said so because neither all huts nor rooms were shown in the plan. This witness is not a hostile one. When the place of recovery is said to be doubtful, it further fortifies the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the recovery has been made to falsely implicate the accused.