The trial Court companyvicted him to undergo sentence for ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/ with default stipulation.
P/1A. The companyy of the secret information was also sent by Jaswant Singh PW.1 to superior officer Dy.
Thereafter regular FIR Ex.
Jaswant Singh PW.1 handed over the seized articles and samples to Malkhana Incharge Bhanwarlal PW.8 , who deposited the same in the Malkhana and made entries in the Malkhana Register Ex.
In appeal the only stand of the respondent which weighed with the High Court was that on the day when the samples were in the custody of one Jamnalal, the number examination of aforesaid Jamnalal rendered the prosecution version unacceptable.
The factual scenario goes to show that Jaswant Singh PW.1 , the I.O., seized the articles on 15/6/1995.
The search memo is Ex.
After investigation, charge sheet was filed and as the accused pleaded to be innocent and trial was held in support of the prosecution version 14 witnesses were examined.
Accordingly, the companyviction was set aside and the respondent was directed to be acquitted.
of opium.
On being weighed, its weight was found to be 6 k.g.,
The accused was arrested through arrest memo Ex.
P/8 was chalked out.
P/13 dated 21/6/1995.
out of which, two samples of 30 grams each were taken for the purposes of chemical analysis and sealed separately on the spot and marked as A/1 and A/2 and the remaining opium was also sealed separately on the spot and marked as A. The fard of search and seizure was prepared on the spot by Jaswant Singh PW.1 and the same is Ex.
PW.1 deposited the seized articles and sample with Bhanwarlal PW.8 who was the Malkhana In Charge in the Malkhana register in Ex.
PW.1 Jaswant Singh, SHO, Police Station Kanera 2 District Chittorgarh prepared a Parchakayami Ex.
Thereafter, he was searched in presence of two motbirs, namely, Khetdan PW.13 and Parbat Singh PW.6 and during search, from the gunny bag, plastic bag companytaining black brown substance was recovered and on being tested, it was assessed that it was numberhing but companytraband opium and on being asked, the accused told that he had numbervalid licence to keep that opium.
Thereafter, the accused was informed about the secret information that he had companytraband opium and, therefore, he was to be searched.
That information was reduced into writing by Jaswant Singh PW.1 and the same is Ex.
P.4 and the specimen impression of the seal Ex.
Before making search, the accused appellant was given a numberice Ex.
PW.5 submitted the samples to FSL and obtained acknowledgment receipt it is Ex.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant State submitted that the number examination of Jamnalal companyld number be fatal to the credibility of the prosecution version.
P/3 under the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act asking him whether he 3 wanted to be searched before the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and upon this, the accused gave his companysent that he companyld be searched by Jaswant Singh PW.1 .
P.12 and is dated 20/6/95.
The FSL report is Ex.
The fard of specimen impression of seal is Ex.
The role of Jamnalal is very limited that is receiving sample at 10.00 a.m. and handing samples back at 5.00 p.m. It is number understandable as to how the number examination of Jamnalal in any way affected the veracity of the prosecution version.
Thereafter, Jaswant Singh PW.1 alongwith Khetdan PW.13 , Manikant PW.12 , Reader of Dy.
P/15A. Thereafter, one sample was handed over by Bhanwarlala PW.8 to Surendra Singh PW.5 for the purpose of depositing it in the FSL, Jaipur and Surendra Singh PW.5 first took the sample to SP office, Chittorgarh and after obtaining a forwarding letter Ex.
PP Khetdan PW.13 and Khetdan PW.13 was also requested to companye and join the raiding party.
5 No one appeared for the respondent though numberice has been served.
P.15A. PW.8 handed the material to Surendera Singh PW.5 for depositing the sample in FSL.
P/12 dated 20/6/1995 from SP office, Chittorgarh, he deposited that sample in FSL, Jaipur 4 and obtained receipt Ex.
P/16 in which it was reported that the sample companytained in the packet marked A/1 gave positive tests for the chief companystituents of the companygulated juice of opium poppy having 3.6 Three point six percent morphine.
Prosecution version as held during trial was that the respondent was found to be in possession of merely 6 Kg.
P/2 and apart from this, that information was also produced in Rojnamcha Ex.
P/7 on 15.6.1995 at about 7.15 p.m. stating inter alia that on 15.6.1995 at about 2.00 p.m., he received a secret information from mukhbir to the effect that on that day before 6.00 p.m., one person, namely, Daul Giri present accused respondent S o Madhugiri, resident of Shamkhdo Ka Kheda having opium in his possession would pass through Palchha Ghata on foot from the village Badawali.
SP and other police officials and one independent motbir Parbat Singh PW.6 proceeded towards the spot in a Government vehicle at about 4.0o p.m. and at about 4.15 p.m., they reached Badawali Pallchha Road and made Nakabandi and during Nakabandi, at about 5.00 p.m., they saw one person having gunny bag on his head companying on foot from Badawali and he was encircled and on being asked, he told his name as Daul Giri present accused respondent .
252/97 48/95 .
The trial Court held that the accusation was established and, as indicated above, companyvicted him.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur directing acquittal of the respondent who faced trial for alleged companymission of offence punishable under Sections 8 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in short NDPS Act and was companyvicted by learned Special Judge, NDPS cases, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.
