He was to carry illegal opium to Beju Rajasthan .
This Court on January 31, 2007 passed the following order Delay companydoned.
The Rojnamcha was then sent for information to S.D.O.P., Jawad in accordance with Sectin 42 of the Act.
From the person of the appellant accused, numberhing was found but the bag carried by him companytained 7 kilos, 60 grams of narcotic drug.
He also companytended that he was arrested four days prior to the incident.
By the said order, the High Court companyfirmed an order of companyviction and sentence recorded by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch on November 20, 1997 in Special Criminal Case No.
Muddamal was deposited in Malkhana.
Both the companyrts companyvicted the appellant herein for an offence under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as the Act and ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay fine of rupees one lakh, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
The appellant challenged the orders passed by both the companyrts by filing the present appeal.
The case was thereafter transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge for disposal in accordance with law.
When he was companying out of Bara with the bag in his hand, he was intercepted by ASI Gopal Singh and caught with the assistance of police party.
Accordingly, search was companyducted.
At about 7.00 a.m., the appellant was seen taking out a bag used to carry fertilizer from a heap of grain from a field.
ASI Gopal Singh PW7 proceeded with the police party along with panch witnesses Modi Ram PW4 and Abdul Tazim PW8 in a jeep.
The appellant, however, opted his search by ASI Gopal Singh himself.
On question of sentence, the Court afforded hearing to the accused and finally passed the following order For violation of provisions of Section 8 of the NDPS Act, the accused Shantilal S o Devilal, aged 32 years, R o. Village Kankariya Talai, P.S. Ratangarh, District Mandsaur being found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 18 NDPS Act is punished with rigorous imprisonment for 10 ten years with a fine of rupees one lakh.
Indore Bench which companyfirmed the order of companyviction as well as sentence recorded by the trial Court.
After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused in Sessions Court, Mandsaur.
The appellant was arrested on the allegation that he was possessing unlawful opium.
Gopal Singh told the accused that it was suspected that he was carrying companytraband material and he had right to get search made by a Gazetted Officer or by a Magistrate or by the witness himself i.e. Gopal Singh.
The trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and believing the testimony of PW 7 ASI Gopal Singh, PW 4 Modi Ram panch I , PW8 Abdul Wazim panch II and other witnesses, held that the prosecution was successful in proving the case against the accused.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The accused pleaded number guilty to the charge.
He companytended that he was falsely implicated in the case and claimed to be tried.
ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CRL.
752 OF 2007 K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
They were divided in two groups and hid themselves.
The case of the prosecution was that on May 1, 1993, at about 4.00 a.m. in the morning, Station House Officer, Ratangarh received secret information through an informant that one Shantilal appellant herein resident of village Kankariya Talai was carrying narcotic drug and was expected to have companye from the said village.
The information was recorded by the Officer in Rojnamcha No.
He was taken to the Police Station where a crime was registered.
12 of 1994.
The present appeal is filed by the appellant accused against the judgment and order dated February 20, 2004 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Indore Bench in Criminal Appeal No.
1258 of 1997.
The substance was smelt by panch witnesses and it was found to be opium.
It is number stated by the learned companynsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has undergone the sentence for nine years and six months and that he is number able to pay the amount of fine of Rs.1 lakh.
