DHARMENDRA KUMAR VISHNOI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment dated August 13, 2002 of Learned Special Judge (NDPS Cases) Jaipur, whereby appellant Dharmendra Kumar Vishnoi was convicted and sentenced under Section 8/18 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short `ndps Act') to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default to further suffer 2 years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts of the case are as under: On July 12, 2001 Sunil Kumar Punia, SHO Mahesh Nagar Jaipur having received secret information about trafficking of narcotic substance, rushed to the place pointed out by the informant and apprehended the appellant. Subsequently on suspicion that the appellant was in possession of contraband the SHO informed him to conduct the search either in presence of Maruti Joshi, Circle Officer (PW-16), who was a Gazetted Officer and happened to be present there or in the presence of Magistrate. The appellant consented for his search to be conducted in presence of Maruti Joshi. On being searched 6. 100 gm opium was recovered from the possession of appellant in presence of motbirs, out of which two samples of 35 gm. each were taken and sealed and remaining opium was also sealed. The appellant was accordingly arrested, a case was registered and investigation commenced. During investigation statements of witnesses were recorded by the police and the samples were sent to FSL. On chemical examination, the samples contained in each of the packet marked 'a' and 'b' gave positive tests for the presence of chief constituents of coagulated juice of opium poppy having 2. 47% morphine and 2. 18% morphine respectively vide Ex. P-18. After completion of all formalities of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge (NDPS Cases) Jaipur. Charge under Section 8/18 NDPS Act was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 16 witnesses and got exhibited 26 documents. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... Obviously the requirement of Section 50 NDPS Act have not been strictly followed. The appellant was not informed that the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, if he sees no reasonable ground for search shall discharge the appellant.