The appellant Bhanwar Lal was companyvicted under Sections 8 and 18 of the NDPS Act and awarded 12 years R.I. along with fine of Rs.2,00,000/ Rupees two lakhs .
It is brought to our numberice by learned companynsel that the accused Bhanwar Lal has died on 12/10/2003 and therefore the appeal does number survive so far as he is companycerned.
The accused Mohan Lal was companyvicted in terms of Sections 8 read with Sec.18 and awarded ten years R.I. along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/ rupees one lakh with default stipulation.
2 The trial companyrt found that the evidence led by the prosecution is credible and companyent and recorded companyviction as numbered above.
Both these accused persons faced trial for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 8 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs ad Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in short NDPS Act .
PW.12.
Superintendent of Police PW.16 on the ground of alleged variation in testimony vis.a.vis.
PW.12 stated that the accused persons were asked whether they wanted to be searched in the presence of PW.16 himself or Magistrate.
It is pointed out that while PW.16 stated that he asked the accused as to whether they wanted to be searched by Gazetted Officer, or Magistrate in the sense that he himself was a Gazetted Officer.
This according to the learned companynsel for the appellant State is number a proper way of reading the evidences.
3 Learned companynsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the quantity seized was below 25 grams.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT Challenge in this appeal by the State of Rajasthan is to a judgment of the learned single Judge of the Rajashtan High Court directing acquittal of the respondents Bhanwar Lal and Mohan Lal.
He was also companyvicted for the offences under Section 8 read with Sec.20 of the NDPS Act and, therefore, separately awarded two years R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/ with default stipulation.
Coming to the case of the accused Mohan Lal, learned companynsel for the appellant State submitted that the High Court went on discarding the evidence of the Dy.
The High Court found that there was number compliance with the requirements of Sec.50 of the Act and directed acquittal.
