CHHAGAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction of the appellant Chhagan Lal under Section 8/18, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh vide his judgment dated 31-1-96 in Sessions Case No. 176/93.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant was travelling in a Roadways bus RNP 605 from Pratapgarh on 11-8-89. The bus arrived at Octroi Post No. 2, Chittorgarh at about 10.30 A. M., which was stopped for checking by Shri Parmanand Acharya, Sub-Inspector, Office of Opium Officer, Chittorgarh Division I. The appellant was sitting on Seat No. 37 and he was interrogated on suspicion by Inspector Shri Parmanand Acharya. Shri Parmanand Acharya wanted to take search and, therefore, the appellant was informed his right under Section 50 of the Act for taking search in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He gave his consent for taking search by Shri Parmanand Acharya, Sub- Inspector and he found 10 gms. of opium in the pocket of his 'Kurta' and 4 Kg. 10 gms. contraband opium in a plastic bag wrapped in a quilt. Two samples containing 25 gms. contraband opium each were taken and sealed on the spot in the presence of the motbirs. Necessary documents with regard to the search and other formalities were prepared, the statement of the appellant Ex. P. 13 was also recorded and after completing the investigation and on the report of the Public Analyst that the samples contained contraband opium, challan was filed against the appellant.

(3.) The appellant denied the charges framed against him under Section 8 read with 18 of the Act and stated in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. that he had no opium in his possession. He did not give any statement to the Inspector Shri Paramanand Acharya. His signatures were forcibly obtained on the papers. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after completing the trial and hearing the arguments found it proved on the basis of the evidence on record that contraband opium was recovered from the possession of the appellant as alleged by the prosecution. Accordingly the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above.