SHIV LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal impugned the judgment dated 16-8-1996 of the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Alwar whereby the accused appellant was convicted under Section 8/20 (B) (i) and 8/20 (B) (ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act. He was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 8/20 (b),(i), in default of payment of fine he was directed to suffer one months rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 8/20 (b) (ii) the appellant was further sentenced to suffer ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1.00. 000 in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Brief resume of the facts is that on the fateful day of September, 1991 at about 6 p.m. a search was conducted on the person of the accused appellant and Tganja weighing twenty grams and charas weighing thirty grams were found in the possession of the accused appellant. The accused appellant was arrested. Investigation commenced and after completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was kd. Charge under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act was framed against the accused appellant who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Thereafter state men t of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The learned trial Court after hearing the rival submissions of the learned Counsels for both the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated above.

(3.) Shri Rakesh Bhargava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant canvassed that the provisions contained in Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act were flouted by the prosecution. It was necessary for the prosecution to give option strictly in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the said Act, but a perusal of the evidence recorded by the prosecution demonstrates that only a partial option was given. The statements of prosecution witnesses are self-contradictory and the accused appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of such statements.