JUGRAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Jugraj filed this appeal against the judgment dated September 4, 2002 of special Judge Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act Cases, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2000 convicting and sentencing the accused appellant under section under section 15 (c) of NDPS Act for 10 years RI with fine of Rs. 1,00,000 in default of payment of fine to suffer six months RI.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on May 8, 2000, SHO Pisangan received information at 2. 00 from an informant that Jugraj son of Phool Chand Tated resident of Govindgarh, at his residence Govindgarh is doing the business of Poppy Capsule and large quantity of it is available with him. He stated that if immediately his house is searched Poppy Capsule can be recovered from him. Finding this information to be true, report about this was prepared and sent to the Superintendent of Police with constable vishnuprasad. Thereafter SHO in a jeep reached govindgarh Bus Stand. At Gopvindgarh Bus Stand mahaveer Singh was asked to arrange two witnesses. On this Mahaveer Singh brought two Panchayat Members jagpal Singh and Noratmal, for becoming witnesses. The witnesses were informed about the information received from the informant and they were taken to tated Mohalla at the residence of Jugraj and reached there at 3. 00 p. m. Jugraj house was opening towards north. One person came out from his house and on asking him he stated his name to be Jugraj son of phoolchand by Caste Tated Mahajan aged 72 years. Jugraj was informed about the information received from informant and in presence of both the witnesses notice under section 50 of NDPS Act was given to him. On this Jugraj stated to be searched by the sho himself. Upto 3. 30 p. m. SHO waited for higher police officials as information was already tendered to them. At 3. 30 Lokesh Sonwal, Dy. superintendent of Police reached there. In his presence and in presence of witnesses and Jugraj owner of the house, his house was searched. In third number room and on west side inside room Three Gunny bags of Poppy capsule were recovered. The witnesses were shown these three Gunny bags. Jugraj was asked to produce licence of keeping this huge quantity of Capsule of poppy over which he stated that he is not having any licence. All the three Gunny Bags containing Capsule of Poppy were taken to the Flour Mill of Kalukhan where the same were weighed and one Gunny bag was found to be 30 Kgs. Second one was weighing to be 20 kgs and third one was 18 Kgs. From these Gunny bags 100 gms two Sampels from each in total 6 packets were taken and Bags were sealed. For sending to FSL the packets were marked as ABC. For keeping material in Malkhana marked D, E, and F. One Gunny bag was mark A -1 and others were marked B 1 and C 1. Accused was arrestred. The accused and the sealed material were taken to the police station at 5. 45 p. m. and FIR was registered. Report about all these were given to the Superintendent of Police. Seized material was deposited in Malkhana. Further investigation was handed over to Addl. Superintendent of Police Mangliawas, who prepared the site map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The seized material was sent to the FSL. and challan was filed before the Court on June 3, 2000. The trial court framed charge against the accused appellant on August 2, 2000 for offence under section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. Accused denied to have committed any offence and claimed to be tried. 9 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case and 18 documents were exhibited. The statement of the accused under section 313 cr. P. C. was recorded and after hearing the arguments the accused was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated September 4, 2002 as mentioned above.

(3.) MR. S. L. Songara and Mr. V. K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant placing reliance on Dharampal Singh vs. State of rajasthan 2006 (3) R. Cr. D. 167 (Raj.) stated that the accused appellant, who is aged about 80 years and remained in imprisonment for more than 7 years be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. The learned counsel argued that the compliance of the provisions of the NDPS Act have not been made, which are mandatory in character and thus the accused appellant is entitled to be released for the period already undergone by him. In the cited case the accused were sentenced to six years and five years imprisonment respectively and they served more than 3 years sentence they have been released for the period already undergone by them as meager quantity of opium was recovered from them. The independent witnesses produced by the police were declared hostile.