LAWS(RAJ)-1989-9-10

BHANWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On September 12, 1989
BHANWAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred under S. 374 (2) Cr. P. C challenging the conviction and sentence passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Beawer on 30. 6 1989 in Sessions Case No. 18/88, State Vs. Bhanwar Singh and Anr. in a case under Sec. 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "n. D. P. S. Act" ). Each of the accused-appellant was sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,00 000/-, in default of payment of which each of them was ordered to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THIS appeal came to be heard at a very early date because while hearing the bail application it was directed that record be sent for and appeal be heard as soon as record is received. Hence it was heard out of turn on priority basis also because accused are in jail.

(3.) MR. G. C. Chatterji appearing on behalf of the prosecution submits that the provisions of S. 42, 50 & 52 of the N. D. P. S. Act though are mandatory in character yet the court has to examine the evidence as to whether compliance of those provisions in substance has been made or not. It is submitted that too technical a view of the evidence recorded in respect of seizure and forwarding of the document would give a premium to the accused over the offence he has committed It is submitted that the accused persons have been caught red handed while going with opium and seizure has been made in the presence of independent motbirs. Besides this there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence in the instant case. It is submitted that about 10 kg. of opium has been recovered from the possession of the accused-appellants, out of which 4 kg 40 gram has been found wrapped around the waist of Chandra Singh which conclusively show that he was in conscious possession of the opium. Learned counsel submits that the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellants require re-consideration.