IMPORTANT POINT
Sentence cannot be reduced to less than the minimum prescribed.

JUDGMENT :

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. This Appeal is filed against the judgment of the High Court by which the conviction of the Appellant under Section 8 read with Section 15 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) and the sentence of 10 years with fine of Rs.1 lakh was affirmed by the High Court.

2. On 14.07.2000, Head Constable Shivshankar working at Police Station Singoli, District Neemuch went to village Palasiya on duty. While coming back from village Palasiya after conducting an inquiry in a complaint filed under Section 174 Cr. P.C., he found Truck No.MP- 14-/1765 parked on a road outside the village Zhantla. On checking the lorry, he found 10 bags of poppy straw, a narcotic drug under the NDPS Act, in the truck. On inquiry, the Appellant who was the driver of the truck produced permit No.198 dated 13.07.2000 issued by the District Excise Officer, Neemuch for transportation of poppy straw from the cultivators of villages Patial, Fusariya, and Dhogaon from 9:00 a.m. till 8:00 p.m. on 14.07.2000. The licence also contained names of the cultivators from the above villages. The Appellant disclosed to the Head Constable that he loaded the poppy straw from village Palasiya with the assistance of Ashish, son of Om Prakash Paliwal, resident of village Badvasa who was an agent to the contractor Bishan Singh. As Shivshankar, Head Constable did not have the power to seize poppy straw under the provisions of the NDPS Act, he took the truck driver i.e. the Appellant along with the truck to the police station. The FIR was registered in the police station Singoli, District Neemuch on 15.07.2000. The narcotic drug was unloaded from the truck and was found to be 415 kilograms in weight. Each bag was marked as Article 1 to Article 10 and two samples of 250 grams from each bag were taken and sealed. The samples of poppy straw were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination in which it was found that the seized materials are pieces of poppy straw.

3. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The accused denied committing any offence. Though he made a prayer for summoning 10 witnesses in his defence, he did not adduce any evidence by summoning any witnesses. The defence of the Appellant was that he was legally transporting the goods of the licensee contractor Bishan Singh who had a valid licence issued by the District Excise Officer. A charge was framed against the Appellant under Section 8 read with Section 15 and Section 8 read with Section 26 of the NDPS Act. The Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the Act which are:

(a). Whether, the seized material is the psychotropic substance poppy straw i.e. is the Dodachura?

(b). Whether, the accused in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act, or the rules made thereunder, has kept in his possession 415 kilograms of poppy straws, or transported or purchased or sold.

(c). Whether, the accused has committed any offence.

4. The Trial Court also framed issues under Section 8 read with Section 26 of the Act which are as follows:

(a). Whether, the holder of the licence, permit or authorization granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder or any person in his employ and action on his behalf has failed to produce without any reasonable cause such licence, permit or authorization on demand;

OR

(b). Omitted without any reasonable cause to maintain accounts or to submit any return in accordance with the provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder?

OR

(c). kept any accounts or makes any statement, which is false or which he knows or has reason to believe to be incorrect;

OR

(d). Willfully and knowingly did any act in breach of any of the conditions of licence, permit or authorization for which a penalty is not prescribed elsewhere in this Act.

OR

(e). Whether, the accused has committed any offence.

5. The Trial Court referred to the case o