Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Having been convicted for offences under Sections 8/18 of NDPS Act ('the Act', for short), having been sentenced to fifteen years of rigorous imprisonment, having been fined Rs.2 lacs, and having been directed to further undergo a sentence of six months of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof, vide judgment dated 17.3.2004, passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases and Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganj Mandi, District Kota, the accused-appellants have approached this Court.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 22.01.2001, G.L. Meena (PW-3), Superintendent, Central Narcotics Bureau, Bhawani Mandi, received a secret information that in case he were to search the house of Bheru Lal, appellant No.1 ('A-1', for short), he is likely to discover opium being hidden in the house. Upon this information, he constituted a raiding party. Around 2:30 PM, the raiding party reached the house of A-1. A-1 was present at his house at the relevant time. An Inspector, Mr. Niranjan Guru (PW-1), informed A-1 that they have secret information that he has concealed opium in his house. Therefore, they would like to search the house. They also gave him a notice under Section 50 of the Act wherein they clearly informed him that he has an option to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or by a Magistrate. However, he declined the offer. When the searching party dug up the veranda, situated in the southern side of the house, they found a white colored plastic drum. Inside the plastic drum, they discovered eleven bags of polythene containing dark brownish substance. When the substance was tested with the aid of the chemical kit carried by the party, it was discovered that the substance is nothing but opium. The total weight of the opium, so discovered, was 130 Kg. 700 gm. The raiding party took two samples, of 25 gm each, from each bag and sealed it. The remaining part of the opium was also sealed. Prior to arresting A-1, his statement (Ex-P/4) was recorded. Even after his arrest, twice statements of A-1 were recorded (Ex-P/7 and Ex-P/8). On the basis of these statements, it was discovered that Bhagwan Singh, appellant No.2 ('A-2', for short) was a partner with A-1. They would collect the opium from nearby villages, would conceal the opium when opium was freely available in the village, and would sell the opium when the supply of opium would decrease, and the demand of opium would increase. The Bureau also issued a summon, under Section 67 of the Act, to Bhagwan Singh. It also recorded his statement (Ex-P/11). Allegedly in his statement, he corroborated the statements of A-1. Subsequently, A-2 was arrested. Thereafter, a criminal complaint was filed against both A-1 and A-2.

3. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, and submitted twenty-six documents. On the other hand, the appellants examined six witnesses, and submitted five documents. After going through the entire evidence, the learned trial court convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 8/18 of the Act and sentenced them as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

4. Mr. A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, it was the duty of the prosecution to firmly establish that the opium was recovered from “the exclusive possession” of A-1. According to A-1, the house in which the opium was discovered, it was not exclusively owned by him. It was jointly owned by him and his brother, Prabhu Lal. Moreover, he had claimed in his statement, given under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he had left the house ten to twelve years ago and was residing in village Rojhani, Tehsil Sitamau in Madhya Pradesh. Furthermore, he had claimed that not only his name was shown in the voter list of the said village, but he also had a ration card issued in the said village. Further, according to the learned counsel, the veranda, from which opium was recovered, was not enclosed by any wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document