An information was given at the companycerned police station, but as the details of the stolen articles companyld only be provided by the Criminal Clerk after he came from the Diwali holidays, an FIR was lodged for an offence under Section 457 IPC.
The remaining substance and other items were separately sealed.
His disclosure statement has been brought on record as Exhibit P 14A. The accused appellant led to discovery in presence of independent witnesses.
96 of 1985 that recovery of disclosure at the instance of the accused appellant had number been proven and that he was never in possession of the said articles, and that there has been total number compliance of Section 42 and 57 of the NDPS Act and, therefore, the companyviction was vitiated in law.
420 gms opium and some other articles were stolen from several packets.
9 of 1986 companyvicting the appellant under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 for short, the NDPS Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.
While in custody, it was informed by him that he had broke open the lock of the malkhana of the Court and stolen the opium and kept it in a white bag and companycealed it in a pit dug by him underneath a small bridge situate between Gupal Sariya and Madiyai.
1 lakh, in default, to suffer one year simple imprisonment and also for offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code IPC and imposing separate sentences for the said offences with a stipulation that all the sentences would run companycurrently.
The relevant facts giving rise to the prosecution are that on 13.11.1985, at 9.30 a.m., Bhanwarlal, PW 8, posted in the Court of the Magistrate, Osian, lodged an FIR, exhibit P 3, at Police Station, Osian informing that when he went to the Court to meet the night chowkidar, he was absent and it was found by him that locks of the main gate of the malkhana were broken and the goods were scattered.
The defence chose number to examine any witness.
After receiving the FSL report and companypleting the investigation, chargesheet under Section 18 of the NDPS act and Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC was filed before the appropriate Court and eventually the matter travelled to the Court of Session.
In companyrse of investigation, the accused Mohan Lal was arrested for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC.
95 of 1986 and number in custody in companynection with this case i.e. FIR No.
The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, examined 14 witnesses.
After the companyrts reopened, the Presiding Officer, Ummed Singh, PW 6, on being informed, visited the premises, got malkhana articles verified and got an inventory prepared by Narain Singh, Criminal Clerk, in charge of Malkhana, PW 4, on 16.11.1985, and it was found that 10 kgs.
The main witnesses are Ummed Singh, PW 6, the companycerned, Magistrate, Narain Singh, PW 4, the Criminal Clerk, in charge of Malkhana, ASI, Achlu Ram, PW 13, ASI Hanuman Singh, PW 3, Koja Ram, PW 10, Gulab Singh, PW 14, and Su Inspector cum SHO, Bheem Singh, PW 12 are witnesses to the recovery.
The FSL report was exhibited as Exhibit P 14.
The High Court repelled all the submissions and affirmed the companyviction and sentence as recorded by the learned trial Judge.
The learned trial Judge, on the basis of the evidence brought on record, found the accused guilty of the charges and accordingly companyvicted him, as has been stated hereinbefore.
The accused pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
200 gms of opium was packed separately, sealed and sent for FSL examination.
The bag and cloth were taken out by the accused digging the pit and the bag companytained 10 kgs and 200 gms of opium as is reflected from seizure memo, Exhibit P 6.
In appeal, it was companytended that incident, as per the prosecution, had occurred between 12th/13th November, 1985 on which date the NDPS Act was number in force, for it came into force only on 14.11.1985 and hence, the offence was punishable under the Opium Act, 1878, for short the Opium Act that the alleged recovery was on 16.1.1985 while the appellant was in custody in companynection with FIR No.
Dipak Misra, J. Calling in question the legal pregnability of the judgment and order dated 16.7.09 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur whereby the learned Single Judge has affirmed the companyviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.
