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

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. SINGH,S.H. KAPADIA
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Appellant
Versus
DAULAT RAM – Respondent
Crl.A. No.-001067-001067 / 2005 23-08-2005



Advocates:
C. L. SAHU

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 3

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 1067 of 2005

PETITIONER:

STATE OF RAJASTHAN

RESPONDENT:

DAULAT RAM

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/08/2005

BENCH:

B.P. SINGH & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

[Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.1114 of 2004]

Heard counsel for the parties.

Delay condoned.

Special leave granted.

This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against

the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dated 25th

April, 2003 in S.B.Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2000. The High Court by its judgment and

order allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and set aside the order of conviction

and sentence passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Chittorgarh dated 5th May, 2000.

The trial court had convicted the respondent of the offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS

Act and sentenced him to undergo 12 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of rupees

one lakh, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment

.

The facts of the case are that Mangilal, SHO police station, Nimbahera received a

secret information at about 4.00 a.m. on 2nd July, 1997 from an informer to the effect that

the

respondent was carrying 16 kgs. of contraband opium and was likely to pass through Arnoda

Bandh with a view to sell that opium. He recorded the information received in the

Rojnamacha and sent copy thereof to the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh and the Circle Officer, Nimbahera through Ramdayal,

Constable(PW-2). He himself proceeded towards the spot indicated by the informant along

with PW3 Rais Mohd. Constable and other Constables. They proceeded in a jeep which was

driven by Shakir Hussain and on the way they picked up 2 panch witnesses, namely, Om

Prakash PW-13 and Bherulal PW1. PW-16 Hari Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police,

Chittorgarh and Prithvi Singh, PW9, SHO, police station, Chanderiya had also been

informed. When Mangilal, PW-8 reached the spot, he found a person carrying a bag on his

head going towards Karpa Ram Ji Ki Khedi. He was accosted by the police party in the

presence of PW16, Dy.S.P. and PW9 S.H.O. Police Station, Chanderiya who had also reached

that spot. That person disclosed his name as Daulat Ram (respondent herein). He was

informed of the fact that he was suspected of carrying contraband opium and that he was to

be searched. He was also given an option under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and asked by

PW8 Mangilal as to whether he wanted to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted

officer or by PW8 Mangilal, SHO himself. The respondent agreed to be searched by PW8

Mangilal and did not opt to be searched before a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate. The

respondent who was carrying the bag on his head was searched. The bag which he was

having on his head was also opened and found to contain 2 polythene bags containing some

substance, brown-black in colour. On being tested, it was found to be opium. The

respondent had no valid license to possess opium. Thereafter, necessary steps were taken t

o

prepare samples which were duly sealed and sent for chemical examination to the forensic

laboratory, which submitted a report adverse to the respondent to the following effect:

"On chemical and micro-chemical examination, each of

the samples contained in packets marked A1 and B-1

gave positive test for the major chemical constituents

of coagulated juice of opium poppy and the sample

marked A1 and B-1 were found to contain 5.32% and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 3

5.26% morphine respectively."

The respondent was put up for trial before the Special Judge, NDPS Cases who

found him guilty of the offence under Section 8/18 of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top