Non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 led to the acquittal of the appellant.

( 1 ) ACCUSED-GOPAL alias mahesh, son of Bhoop Kachhi, filed this appeal from jail against the judgment and order dated 20-6-1989 passed by the then learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur whereby he convicted Gopal alias Mahesh under s. 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a sum of rupees one lac as fine in the event of default, he was ordered to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case was as under : p. W. 1 S. 1. Rajendra Dhar Dwivedi was posted as Station Officer GRP, Fatehpur on 24-9-1988. He accompanied by two Constables, namely, Tribhuwan Pandey and afsar Khan were on duty at platform No. 2/3 of the Railway Station. At about 9-45 p. m. S. I, Dwivedi was informed by Mukhbir that one miscreant having intoxicating drugs and weapon was waiting on the wooden bench under tin-shed built towards east of the over-bridge for Prayag Raj Express. Believing this information, S. I. Dwivedi picked up two public witnesses Ramesh and Ram khelawan and disclosed his mission to them. The police force accompanied by public witnesses and the Mukhbir arrived near the said tin-shed and questioned a person sitting on the bench. He did not reply and tried to run away. He was, however, overpowered by the police force with the help of witnesses at about 10. 00 p. m.

( 3 ) AFTER interrogation, the miscreant disclosed his name as Gopal alias Mahesh kachhi and on being searched in the presence of public witnesses, a knife was recovered from his possession. The police further recovered fifteen tablets of Lorazepam from the left pocket of the trouser.

( 4 ) ACCUSED-GOPAL alias Mahesh could not produce the licence for having knife and any prescription of a medical practitioner on demand, The accused was formally arrested by the police after disclosing the grounds of arrest. Both knife and tablets were sealed on the spot separately. The sample of seal was prepared and a fard recovery was also prepared on the spot and a copy thereof was furnished to the accused, Accused-Gopal alias Mahesh along with recovered weapon and tablets was brought to the police station and a case was registered at Crime No. 109 under S. 22 of the Act at 11 -00 p. m. on the same night.

( 5 ) P. W. 3 Laljl Prasad, Head Moharrir prepared Chik report and made entry in the g. D. at serial No. 41.

( 6 ) THE investigation of the case was taken up by S. I. Krishna Pal Singh, who was incharge of the GRP outpost, Khaga. He interrogated the witnesses and inspected the place of occurrence and prepared a site plan. Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to GRP, Kanpur. After chemical examination, the tablets were found to contain Lorazepam. After completing investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused by s. H. O. Nageshwar Tiwari, GRP, Kanpur Central.

( 7 ) THE case was committed to the Court of Session on 22-12-1988 and accused was charged under S. 22 of the Act on 2-2-1989. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

( 8 ) IN order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P. W. 1 S. I. Rajendra Dhar dwivedi, the arresting officer, P. W. 2 ramesh, one of the public witnesses, who was allegedly present at the time of arrest of the accused, P. W. 3 H. C. Lalji Prasad P. W. 4 S. I. Krishna Pal Singh, I. O. of the case and P. W. 5 Constable Ram Kumar Verma, who filed affidavit to the effect that he took the sealed bundle to Forensic Science Laboratory, lucknow and deposited there on 21-10-1988. He further disclosed that he obtained the report of Chemical Examiner and handed over the same on 17-1-1989 at GRP, fatehpur.

( 9 ) ACCUSED-GOPAL alias Mahesh in his statement given under S. 313, Cr. P. C. totally denied all accusation and stated that tablets were planted by S. I. Dwivedi and he was falsely implicated. He led no evidence in defence.

( 10 ) AFTER hav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document