SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Raj) 2147

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Narendra Kumar Jain-II, J.
Dilip Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 1989.
Decided On : 3-10-2012

Advocates:
For the Appellant:Pradeep Shah, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ashok Prajapat, Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – S. 8/20 – Appeal against Conviction – FSL report neither produced nor exhibited – Not proved that the accused was in exclusive possession of the room – no Seal of recovery Officer placed on the sample neither seal handed over to independent person – no proof that the sample remained intact till reaching the FSL as Malkhana incharge and malkhana register not produced on record – offence not proved beyond the reasonable grounds

       B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – S. 42 Mandatory provision of reducing the information received into writing and forwarding it to immediate superior officer not complied with by SHO PW10 – Conviction liable to be set aside.

JUDGMENT

1. - The accused-appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.9.1989 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Udaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in Sessions Case No, 1/1987, whereby the learned trial judge convicted the accused-appellant Dilip Kumar S/o Himmat Lal, By Caste-Soni, R/o Bhadbhunja Ghati, Udaipur for offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after 'the N.D.P.S. Act') and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of T 1 lac, in default of payment whereof to farther undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment.

2. In short, facts-of the case are that on 7.12.1986 early in the morning Mr. R.P. Srivastava (PW-11) Dy. S.P., Udaipur City (West) received a secret information that the accused-appellant Dilip Kumar is keeping 'charas' in his house and doing illegal business. Upon receiving this information, he, along with Rajesh Soral, S.H.O., Ambamata, Udaipur (PW-9), Tej Singh, A.S.I., S.H.O., Dhanmandi, Udaipttr (PW-10), Sunder Lal, A.S.I. and other Police Officials and motibrs-Mehtab Singh (PW-1) and Madan Lal (PW-8) constituted a raiding party. The raiding party reached to appellant's house at around 8.45 A.M.

3. The accused-appellant was called outside form his room and he was taken along with raiding party. Out of four rooms on first floor of his house, Dilip Kumar's room situated towards Western side was searched, whereupon a black resin bag, which had zip chain, was found from beneath bed of Dilip Kumar, in which 'charas' was found filled in polythene pouches. In all 19 pouches were there in that black resin bag. Another brown bag was found to contain 10 pouches, filling with 'charas'.

4. In that room, from an almirah built in the Eastern wall, the raiding party found 500 gms brass-weight, 500 gms iron weight, 200 gms iron weight, two 20 gms brass weights and 10 gins brass, weighing balance having brass strands and ironbar, small-big in all 200 polythene pouches.

5. Manna Lal S/o Ram laiji Khatri (PW-3) was called with weights and weighing balance while Radhey Shyam S/o Ram Das (PW-2) from Rama Studio was also called. The recovered contraband 'charas', upon weighing, was found to be 14 kilogram 500 grams in all, out of one packet of 500 gms was taken as sample for chemical analysis. The recovered charas was photographed before sealing. Various memos were prepared and statement of witnesses were recorded.

6. The accused-appellant was arrested on 7.12.1986 vide arrest memo Ex.P-3 and F.I.R. No. 105/1986 (Ex.P-7) was registered at Police Station-Dhanmandi, Udaipttr. After due investigation, Police filed challan against the accused-appellant for offence under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (North), Udaipur, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, where after it was assigned to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur for trial.

7. The trial Court, on 4.6.1987 framed charges tinder Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act against the accused-appellant, who denied commission of the offence alleged against him and claimed trial.

8. The prosecution supported its case with the aid of 11 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents. Statement of accused-appellant was recorded tinder Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he in categorical terms denied that the room belong to his possession. He also retracted, denying alleged recovery and even search of his room. The accused-appellant alleged that what proceeding was undertaken by Police personnel, he is not aware, he was made to sit outside and only at time of taking snaps he was called inside. He further stated that his room was not searched, the room so searched was of his brother and he, in act, lives on ground floor. He had went in that room only for a moment in search of a key and came out upon calling by police. In defence, the accused-appellant examined himself as DW-2 and his father Himmat Lal was examined as DW-1 an









































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top