AYUB Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence under S. 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1985) passed against the appellant in Sessions Case No. 178/94. The appellant has been sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1,00,000/- fine and in default to further suffer 2 years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Shri Azad Kumar Sharma, Dy. S. P., Bhilwara received source information during the night of 20-3-94 and 21-3-1994 that a person with opium in his possession was present at the bus stand. The information was reduced into writing as Ex. P. 3. Dy. S. P. Shri Azad Kumar Sharma went to the Bus Stand with two motbirs and saw a person out side the enquiry office of the Bus Stand with a black coloured bag in his right hand. On interrogation, he disclosed his name as Ayub Khan son of Rula Ji Musalman Gujar, resident of Bapoli, District, Panipat (Haryana). He was informed about his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate under S. 50 of the Act, 1985 through memo Ex. P4. The appellant accused gave his consent for search by the Dy. S. P. Dy. S. P. Shri Azad Kumar Sharma conducted search in the presence of the motbirs and found 1 Kg. and 900 Gms. contraband opium in a bag in the possession of the appellant accused. Two samples of 30 Gms. each were taken on the spot and duly sealed and the remaining opium was also sealed in a bag. A F.I.R. was also lodged against the appellant by Dy. S. P. Shri Azad Kumar Sharma on 21-3-94 at Police Station, Subhash Nagar and a case under S. 8/18 of the Act, 1985 was investigated and after usual investigation a challan was filed against the appellant on receiving the report from Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur that the material in the sealed packet was contraband opium.

(3.) The appellant denied the charge framed against him under S. 8/18 of the Act, 1985. He stated in his statement under S. 313, Cr. P.C. that the facts disclosed by the prosecution are wrong and no opium was recovered from him. The learned Special Judge after hearing the parties and appraisal of the evidence on record, recorded the conviction and sentence as indicated above.