2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 12231
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rajesh Jain – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
CRA 276/2012
Sanjay Sharma,,A.G.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1351 of 2011 BETWEEN:-
PARMJEET @ PARMANAND S/O DEVBHAGAT, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CLEANER VILL.KALA PIPAL P.S.ICCHAWAR DISTT.SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT (SHRI MUKESH SINJONIYA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT.)
AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT. THRU.P.S.NAGDA DISTT.UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI BHASKAR AGRAWAL, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT/STATE.)
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 276 of 2012 BETWEEN:-
RAJESH JAIN S/O SONU JAIN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PRAKASH NAGAR NAGDA DISTT.UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT (SHRI ABHISHEK RATHORE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT.)
AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT. THROUGH POLICE STATION DISTT.UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI BHASKAR AGRAWAL, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT/STATE.)
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA passed the following:
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 15th November, 2022)
The appellants have filed both the present appeals being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.8.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Ujjain in Special Case No.05/2010 whereby they have been convicted for the offence u/s. 8/15 of the Narcotic Drug Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo 20 years' RI with a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each and in default of payment of a fine amount, to further undergo 5 years' RI.
The brief facts of the case are as under :
1. As per the prosecution story, C.S. Rathore (P.W.12) was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector at Police Station Nagda. On 10.6.2010 he received information from his source that somewhere in between the Villages of Guradia Pitramal and Jalodia Rathada, 4-5 persons brought the poppy straw in a truck bearing Registration No. MP-09- KD-9522 and burning the same. The information was recorded in the daily diary at No. 593-A vide Exh. P/37. The witnesses were called and the information was sent to the City Superintendent of Police through Constable Siyaram. The Fire Brigade was called from Nagar Palika. A team led by C.S. Rathore (P.W.12) reached the spot and they saw one truck parked, 3-4 persons standing nearby and some this is burning. After seeing the police, they all ran away, however, the police succeeded in catching Paramjit @ Parmanand S/o. Devbhagat Singh resident of Kalapipal. He disclosed his name and the name of other persons viz. Arif Azam, Sanju Harshit, Sanjay and Virendra Mama. Paramjit was duly searched but nothing incriminating material was found in his possession. Thereafter, the truck was searched in which ‘poppy straw’and “Khada Dhania” were found. Seizure memo vide Exh. P/12 was prepared. Meanwhile, the Fire Brigade extinguished the fire of poppy-straw. The remaining unburnt quantity of ‘poppy straw’was collected. The photographs were taken and by way of smell, it was identified as poppy-straw. The police collected the ‘poppy straw’from the truck measuring it 9 Kg. The unburnt ‘poppy straw’was found at 17 Kg. 600 gms. and 924 Kg. of burnt ‘poppy straw’in the form of ashes were found. They all were kept in 20 bags vide Exh. P/17. 2-2. Samples of 250-250 gms. were drawn and sent for FSL. The truck was seized. Accused Paramjit was arrested in Cr. Case No.201/1010 registered for the offence punishable u/s. 201 of the IPC and u/s. 8/15 of the NDPS Act. The investigation further revealed that the truck was owned by Gurmit Singh. Accused – Raju @ Rajesh was also arrested vide arrested memo Exh. P/52. FSL report (Exh. P/54) has confirmed presence of ‘poppy straw’and coriander in the samples taken from burnt poppy straw and also from the samples collected by the police as poppy-straw. The charge sheet was filed against two accused i.e. present appellants viz. Paramjit @ Parmanand and Rajesh Jain. They denied the charges and pleaded for trial. Despite the charge-sheet being filed against the appellan