SAYEED ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant jail appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant (for short the accused) impugning the judgment dated June 13, 1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kota whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced under Sec. 8/21 of the N.D.RS. Act 1985 to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rupees One Lakh, in default to further undergo two and half years Rigorous Imprisonment.

(2.) The case of prosecution, in short, is that on March 18, 1995 the accused was arrested in a criminal case under N.D.RS. Act by Police Station, G.R.R, Kota and was remanded to judicial custody. At the time of entering into Central Jail, Kota when he was searched by gate keeper Shanker Lal, two pouches of smack were recovered from the shoes of the accused. Shanker Lal deposited smack with the Deputy Jailor Manohar Singh and made a written complaint with the Jail Superintendent who forwarded the complaint to the S.H.O. Nayapura, Kota. A case under Sec. 8/21 of N.D.PS. Act was registered against the accused and investigation commended. An application was moved by the I.O. before the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Kota seeking police remand of the accused. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated March 20, 1995 remanded the accused in police custody and issued direction to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota to handover the accused to S.H.O., Police Station, Nayapura, Kota. The accused thereafter, was taken in police custody and his arrest was shown on March 20, 1995. Smack weighing 208 Gms. and shoes were seized through seizure memo. Two samples, each containing one gram of smack were drawn and sealed. The samples were sent to F.S.L., Jaipur. Report of F.S.L. confirmed that each of the packet gave positive test for the presence of Diacetyl Morphine (Heroin). On completion of investigation challan under Sec. 8/21 N.D.RS. Act was filed. The accused was charged under Sec. 8/21 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty. On evaluation of evidence the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated here-in-above.

(3.) I have heard Miss Rajesh Kandwal, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Poddar, learned PP for the State and scrutinised the record.