PURAN RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Puran Ram has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated 21.01.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.25/2012, whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years alongwith a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year.

(2.) Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. The prosecution case is based on the allegation that Shri Saurabh Tiwari (P.W.11), SHO, Police Station Pallu was conducting a Nakabandi on the Arjunsar T- crossing in the night intervening 06.08.2011 and 07.08.2011. At about 01.00 a.m., a blue coloured car was seen coming from towards Sardarshahar. The police team (SHO and the other members of the police station) signaled the driver to stop the car, in which two persons were sitting. However, on noticing the presence of the police party, the car driver tried to take the car away towards Pallu. The car was pursued by the police team. At about 02.00 a.m., when they reached the Johad Payatan Rohi Gulabgarh, the car was seen stalled in the rain water. Its number plate was broken. It was bearing Registration No.HR12-F-6716. The car model was Scoda Octavia. No one was seen inside the car. Search was made for the suspects in the vicinity, but nobody could be found. The car was searched in presence of motbirs and it was found that 8 plastic bags containing poppy straw like substance were concealed therein. All the bags were emptied on a tarpaulin and the contraband was weighed. The gross weight thereof came to be 2 quintal 65 kg. The suspected contraband which was stored in separate bags was mixed up and two samples of 500 gms. each were taken out therefrom. Seizure and sampling procedure was completed. The car and the contraband were taken to the Police Station Pallu, where FIR No.130/2011 was registered for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. The registered owner of the vehicle, namely, Balraj Singh, was given a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act. He divulged that he had sold the vehicle to the appellant herein, whereupon the appellant was arrested and charge-sheet was filed against him in the competent court for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS act. The trial court framed charges against the accused for the offences under Section 8/15 and 25 of the NDPS Act, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses and exhibited 40 documents in support of its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant did not dispute the fact that he had purchased the car in question, but he claimed that the car was not in his possession on 06.08.2011 and 07.08.2011 and that he had no connection with the poppy straw seized therefrom. He stated that his known person Sukha Singh had taken the car on the premise that he wanted to visit his relatives. No evidence was led in defence.

(3.) Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge proceeded to hold that the prosecution did not lead sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was present in the car when the seizure was effected. The car which was being used to transport the contraband poppy straw was owned by the appellant. Thus, the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act by extending him the benefit of doubt. However, the appellant was held to be the owner of the offending vehicle and while raising the presumption under Section 35 read with Section 54 of the NDPS Act, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced him as above for the offence under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. Hence, this appeal.