SURJA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jodhpur dated 13.11.2006, whereby he convicted accused appellant Surja Ram under section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred-to as "the Act" and sentenced him to 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.one lac and in default, to further undergo one year's R.I.

(2.) Facts leading to this appeal are that the Dy.Superintendent of Police Guman Singh received a secret information on 9.8.2005 at 6.15 AM that one Surja Ram Bishnoi of Village Joliyali is indulged in the sale of opium milk at his tube well and some opium milk for sale is lying in the room of his tube well. He recorded the information at Police Station, Osian and went at the spot along with S.H.O. and constables in the Govt. vehicle at 8 A.M. He also called the motbirs in the way and a person viz; Surja Ram was found standing on the tube well. He was informed about the search, who consented for the same. Thereafter, he took out one key from his right pocket of the 'Payjama' and opened the room, from where a yellow colour plastic bag was found in which a black colour substance was found, which was on being tasted found to be opium milk for which accused was having no valid licence. On being weighed, the same was found to be 3.250 kgs. out of which, two samples of 30 gms. each were taken on the spot and sealed. The remaining opium along with sample and controlled opium milk with lock and key were taken in the police custody and they were deposited in the Malkhana. The case was registered against the accused. After investigation, the challan was filed under section 8/18 of the Act against the accused and he was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.PC. He produced four witnesses in the defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused appellant as above.

(3.) While assailing the judgment of the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case, the accused was not in conscious possession of the field from where the recovery has been made. Per contra, the field was belonging in the name of his brother's wife and the Patwari has specifically stated in his cross examination that accused Surja Ram did not cultivate the field in the preceding two years. He has also submitted that there was no entry in the Malkhana register about the lock and key and despite that, the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in this regard and convicted the accused as above.