GULAB CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Sikar dated 17th May, 1982 confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar vide its judgment dated 27th Dec., 1980 as under : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_36_LAWS(RAJ)2_19891.html</FRM> Both the sentences ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Facts leading to the revision petition are that on 14th Feb., 1976 at 3.30 p.m. a report was lodged by one Chunnilal (P.W. 7) wherein it was alleged by him that one Gulabchand son of Durga Prasad is selling Ganja and opium on his shop near Salasar Bus Stand, Sikar in which he is carrying on the business of selling empty opium poppy capsule. It was further alleged that the information was also to the extent that he keeps the stock concealed of Ganja and opium in his house. On receipt of this information from one Pokar Ram son of Shiv Bux Ram, the S.H.O., Police Station Sikar along with other police officials went to the shop of Gulab Chand at 12.15 in the noon. Gulab Chand was sitting on the shop and in the presence of motbir Shri Ram Chand and Liyakat Ali his shop was searched where from 350 gms of Ganja and 500 gms of opium was recovered. Subsequent to this, it is alleged that search of his house was also taken where from also 30 Kgs. and 390 gms of Ganja and 5 kgs. 550 gms of opium were recovered. All these things were sealed and on returning to the Police station, the aforesaid case was registered by Chunnilal, Dy. S.P., Sikar (P.W. 7). Sample of the opium as well as Ganja were taken out during investigation and sent to Forensic science laboratory for analysis. Police after investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner for offence under Sec. 9 of the Opium Act and Sec. 54 of the Excise Act. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar on 16th June, 1976 framed charges under Sec. 9 of the Opium Act and Sec. 54 of the Excise Act for recovery of Ganja and opium from the residence as well as from the house. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case.

(3.) Accused in his statement, has denied the prosecution story and submitted that he had strained relations with Dy. S.P. Chunni Lal who is responsible for falsely making out a case against him. He examined four witnesses in his defence. He also filed statements in writing. The learned Magistrate did not accept the defence case and relying upon the statement of Chunnilal and other police officials convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Aggrieved with that an appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Siker but the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 17th May, 1982. Hence, this revision has been preferred.