STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. DEVI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER having received a secrete information about cultivation of crop of opium, the Station House Officer, Police Station Kelwada along with motbirs reached at the field of accused respondent Devi Singh on 21.03.2004 where accused respondent was present. He was informed about the information and after giving the personal search informed accused respondent Devi Singh to search the field for cultivation of opium plants in his field and after giving a notice under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') took search of the field and 105 plants of opium poppy were recovered from the agricultural field of accused respondent Devi Singh. Two samples weighing 250 each were taken and sealed. Rest of the plants which weighing 2.500 Kg were sealed separately. On completing formality accused respondent Devi Singh was arrested on the spot and a case under Section 8/18 of the Act was registered. After investigation challan was filed against respondent. On the basis of the material and evidence produced by the prosecution along with the challan, the learned trial Court framed charges against accused respondent to which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and also produced some documents. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused respondent denied to have cultivated the opium plants and pleaded that the land does not belong to him. He never cultivated opium in the field.

(2.) LEARNED trial Court after hearing both the sides and after going through the entire evidence came to the conclusion that there is no evidence either oral or documentary to this effect that the respondent has any right over the land from which opium plants were recovered and there was also no evidence on record that it was the accused respondent who cultivated the opium plants in the field. After relying on the decision report in 2004 Cr.L.R. (SC) 415, the learned trial Court acquitted accused respondent, against which judgment, the present leave to appeal has been filed by the State Government.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has contended that the trial Court has wrongly reached at the conclusion that the field from where the opium plants were recovered does not belong to the accused respondent as the accused respondent was found in the field itself at the time of search and recovery and the field belongs to the accused respondent himself. Learned P.P. further contended that the trial Court has wrongly interpreted the evidence produced by the prosecution and thus, has requested for grant of leave to appeal.