STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PILLU @ PRAHLAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 29th March, 1997 rendered by Special Judge, NDPS Act, Bharatpur whereby the accused respondent Pillu alias Prahlad was acquitted in the offence under Sec. 8/18 and 8/20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1985") and convicted in the offence under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to a period of one year Rigorous imprisonment and together with a fine of Rs. 200/ -; in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) The accused respondent Pillu alias Prahlad is alleged to have been found in possession of 4 Kg. 900 grams opium and 2 kg. 600 grams charas. It is alleged that on 21st June, 1995 at 6.00 AM the then circle officer city Bharatpur accompanied with the police personnel reached at the house of accused Pillu @ Prahlad on an information received from the informer and took the search of his house wherein in almirah two polythene bags were found and each bag separately contained opium and charas of the aforesaid weight. The search and seizure Officer Shri Bharat Lal having taken samples separately, duly sealed each of them and seized vide memo Ex.P/1 where upon FIR Ex.D/ 6 was lodged and on completion of investigation the challan was filed against him.

(3.) The accused was indicated for the offences under Sec. 8/18 and 8/20 of the Act 1985 and Sec. 3 read with Sec. 25 of the Arms Act who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses to prove its case. The accused in his statement under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. claimed innocence and put a defence that the house from where the aforesaid opium and charas is alleged to have been recovered did not belong to him and he never resided there. They are five brothers and living jointly. He had no bearing with the commission of offence and was falsely implicated in the case. On completion of trial, the accused respondent was acquitted in the offence under Sec. 8/18 and 8/20 and convicted in the offences under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 25 of the Arms Act as indicated hereinabove.