Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arjun Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 26 May, 2017
Cr.A.No.1042/2002
4.5.2017
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Arguments heard. Reserved for orders.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Patil
26.5.2017
Order passed separately, signed and dated.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
Patil
Cr.A.No.1042/2002
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
SINGLE BENCH: HON. JUSTICE SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, J.
Cr.A.No.1042/2002
Arjunsingh @ Arjunlal S/o Harlal Jat
Versus
State of M.P.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on 26/05/2017) This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 24.8.2002 passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act), Neemuch in Special Case No.27/2001, whereby learned Judge found appellant guilty for the offence under Section 8 read with Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for brevity hereinafter referred as the Act) and sentenced him to undergo ten years R.I. with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 1.7.2000 at about 8.00 AM P.C.Chasta (PW-3), the then SHO, P.S., Jawad received a secret information from the informant that appellant Arjun Singh resident of Chittorgarh District would be passing through Nagthun road carrying illegal opium on bike. On that he wrote the information in daily diary and called two independent witnesses Mahesh (PW-9) and Ahmed Khan, informed them about the same and made information memorandum Ex.P/2 and also prepared Ex.P/3 memo of not getting search warrant and sent that information in a latter Ex.P/4 to SDOP, Jawad along with the copy of Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/3 through Constable Cr.A.No.1042/2002 Laxman Singh. Then along with other members of Police force Head Constable Kanhaiyalal, Constable Banshilal, Rakesh, Ghanshyam and Sainik Shyamlal, Tulsiram and independent witnesses Mahesh and Ahmed Khan reached the spot, where he apprehended the appellant Arjun Singh, who was coming on bike bearing registration No.RJ-09- O-0584 from Nagthun side. He informed appellant Arjun Singh that he had received information that he was carrying illegal opium and wanted to search him and prepared memo Ex.P/5. After obtaining the consent letter for search Ex.P/6 from appellant and giving personal search of himself and other party members, he searched appellant Arjun Singh, but did not find any narcotic substance and prepared search memo Ex.P/7 and Ex.P/8. Then he searched the motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-09-O-0584, wherein in the dickey of the motorcycle in a jute bag he found black material in a polythene. He tasted that material. On being tasting it was found to be opium and he weighed that material, which was found to be 7 Kg. 250 gms. Then he took two samples of 30 gms.each (exhibited in evidence as Article A/1) and placed the same in two bags, which were stitched and sealed with slip of seal of Police Station and remaining material article A/2 was also sealed in a separate bag of cloth, which was sealed and stitched with slip and seal of Police Station bearing signatures of Panch witnesses and detailed Panchnama Ex.P/9 and a memo of seal impression was also prepared. The seizure memo Ex.P/10 of those two samples Article A/1 and remaining material Article A/2 and Rajdoot motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-09-O-0584 was also prepared.
3. Thereafter he returned to P.S., Jawad, and after returning to P.S., Jawad P.C.Chasta (PW-3) lodged FIR of the incident. On that F.I.R. crime No.197/2000 for the offence under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act was registered at P.S., Jawad. Thereafter, further investigation was carried out by Raghunath Singh (PW-7). He went to spot and prepared spot map Ex.P/30, recorded statements of P.C.Chasta (PW-3), Constable Aziz Khan, Khem Singh, Head Constable Kanhaiyalal, Cr.A.No.1042/2002 Tulsiram, Constable Banshilal, Basant Kumar, Laxman Singh and independent witnesses Mahesh and Ahmed Khan and also sent the seized sample Article A/1 to FSL, Rau for chemical analysis through S.P., Ratlam along with draft ExP32. Report Ex.P/33 was received, wherein 4.06% morphine was found. Thereafter, Police filed charge sheet against appellant Arjun Singh in the Special Court at Neemuch.
4. On that charge sheet learned Special Judge registered Special Case No.96/2000 (new number 27/2001) and framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 8 read with Section 18 of NDPS Act and tried the case against the appellant. The appellant denied the charge and took defence that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case and that he was not present on the spot at the time of incident. He is a resident of Nimbaheda and does not know how to ride a motorcycle. At the time of incident Police apprehended him near Mangrol and took him to P.S., Jawad and registered false case against him. Bakshuram lodged the report of that incident at P.S., Nimbaheda and he also produced Nandlal (DW-1), Bakshuram (DW-2) and Kailash Singh (DW-3) in his defence in this regard. But the learned trial Court after appreciating all evidence found appellant guilty for the offence under Section 8 read with Section 18 (C)of the NDPS Act.
5. The prosecution produced nine witnesses for proving its case. Basant Kumar (PW-1) and Jagdish (PW-5) for proving that after receipt of information P.C.Chasta (PW-3) entered the said information in daily diary and sent to SDOP, Jawad and complied with the provisions of Section 42 and 57 of the Act.
Inspector P.C.Chasta (PW-3) and Aziz Khan(PW2) for proving the search and seizure of the contraband.
Raghunath Singh (PW-7) for recording the case diary statements of prosecution witnesses and sending the said sample of opium to FSL, Rau.
Cr.A.No.1042/2002Upendra Singh (PW-8) for depositing the seized article (motorcycle and seized opium) at P.S., Jawad.
Shailendra Singh (PW-6) for depositing the sample for analysis after getting it from P.S., Jawad to FSL, Rau.
Mahesh (PW-9) an independent witness, but he did not support the prosecution case.
6. However, relying on the evidence of Inspector P.C.Chasta and other witnesses learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being aggrieved with the same appellant has filed this criminal appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the independent witnesses Mahesh (PW-9) before whom the said seizure of contraband was made, did not support the case of prosecution. Thus, conviction cannot be based only on the statement of P.C.Chasta (PW-3), who is Police Officer. The compliance of Section 42, 50, 55, 57 of the NDPS Act is also not proved. The seized article was not produced in the Court at the time of filing of charge sheet, at the time of recording of statement of prosecution witnesses. Also it is not proved that the substance, which was sent for analysis was the same as seized from possession of the appellant. In absence of the same conviction of the appellant is not sustainable. Learned trial Court committed mistake in finding appellant guilty.
8. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer and submitted that the evidence of P.C.Chasta is reliable. His statement is corroborated by seizure memo and other documents Ex.P/ 2 to Ex.P/12 and report Ex.P/33, whereby it was confirmed that seized article was opium. The opium was not recovered from personal possession of appellant but the same was seized from the motorcycle. In that circumstances provisions of Section 50 of the Act are not applicable in the case. From the prosecution evidence it is also clear that after seizure of the contraband it was stored in Malkhana of P.S., Cr.A.No.1042/2002 Jawad and then Shailendra Singh (PW-6) deposited that sample to FSL, Rau. So learned trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty.
9. The point for determination in this appeal is whether the sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 8/18 is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the appeal memo.
10. In this regard P.C.Chasta deposed that on 1.7.2000 he was posted as SHO, P.S., Jawad and on that day he had received the information that appellant Arjun Singh resident of Mangji Ka Kheda would be going from Nagthun to Ratanpuriya for delivering illegal opium. On that he wrote that information in daily diary and thereafter through Constable Banshilal he called two independent Panch witnesses Mahesh (PW-9) and Ahmed Khan and informed them about the same and prepared information memorandum Ex.P/2 and also prepared memo Ex.P/3 of not getting search warrant and sent a copy of Ex.P/3 and P/4 to SDOP, Jawad along with latter ExP4 through Constable Laxman. Thereafter he reached the spot along with other members of Police force Head Constable Kanhaiyalal, Constable Tulsiram, Constable Banshilal, Basant Kumar, Laxman Singh and independent witnesses Mahesh and Ahmed Khan on bikes. After reaching on the spot waited for appellant and appellant came there on motorcycle after two hours. He apprehended appellant Arjun Singh and informed him that he had received information that he was carrying illegal opium and wanted to search him and prepared information memo Ex.P/5. Giving personal search of himself and other party members to him and prepared search memo Ex.P/7 and after giving personal search of himself and other party members he searched appellant Arjun Singh, but did not find any narcotic substance and prepared search memo Ex.P/8. Then he searched motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-09-O-0584. In the dickey of the said bike found black material in a polythene bag contained in a jute bag. He seized that material and on tasting the same it was found to be opium. He then weighted that material and found it to be 7 Kg.250 gms.and prepared Cr.A.No.1042/2002 measurement memo. Then he took two samples of 30 gms. each Article A/1 and A/2 and placed it in a bag of cloth, which was stitched and sealed with slip of seal of Police Station and remaining article A/2 was also sealed in a separate bag of cloth, which was sealed and stitched with slip and seal of Police Station bearing signatures of Panch witnesses and detailed Panchnama of proceedings Ex.P/9 and a memo of seal impression was prepared. The seizure memo Ex.P/10 of those two samples Article A/1 and remaining material Article A/2 and Rajdoot motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-09-O-0584 was also prepared. The appellant was arrested and arrest memo Ex.P/11 was prepared. Then he returned to P.S., Jawad along with appellant,seized material and raid party. On reaching P.S., Jawad he handed over the seized material and motorcycle to the then Head Constable Moharir of P.S., Jawad Upendra Singh (PW-8) and also lodged the report Ex.P/12 and registered Crime No.197/2000 for the offence under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act.
11. His statement was also corroborated by FIR Ex.P/12 and other document ExP2 to ExP 11 and his statement is also corroborated by the statement of Aziz Khan (PW-2) the member of raiding party. Although, independent witness Mahesh (PW-9) before whom the seizure of contraband was made did not support the case of prosecution and other independent witness Ahmed, has not been produced by the prosecution. But Mahesh (PW-9) admitted his signatures on Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/11. Had P.C.Chasta (PW-3) not carried out any proceedings in front of him why would he sign those documents,this shows that Mahesh (PW-9) is not telling the truth. So only on the ground that statement of P.C.Chasta (PW-3) does not corroborate with the statement of Mahesh (PW-9) and other independent witnesses, has not been produced by the prosecution, the statement of P.C.Chasta (PW-3) and Aziz Khan (PW-2) cannot be disbelieved.
Cr.A.No.1042/200212. Apex court in the case of Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1511 held that if the evidence of investigating officer who recovered the material objects is convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses do not support the prosecution version. in the case of Sanjay V. State, reported in 2001 Cr. L.J. 1231 (SC) held It is well settled that evidence of search or seizure made by the police will not be vitiated solely for the reason that independent witnesses do not support the prosecution case. In the case of Karamjeet V. State, reported in AIR 2003 page 1311 Apex Court also held "The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be accepted". And in the case of Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 5 SCC 123, Apex court held The seizure witnesses turning hostile may not be very significant, as it is not an uncommon phenomenon in criminal trials, particularly in cases relating to NDPS Act. So only on the ground that Panch witnesses did not support the statement of P.C.Chasta (PW-3) his statement can not be discarded. There is no material contradiction or omissions in the statement of P.C.Chasta (PW-3) on the basis of which his statement can be assumed false.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the seized article was not produced in the Court at the time of filing of charge sheet and during evidence, in absence of which conviction of the appellant is not sustainable. In this regard he placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment passed in the case of Jitendra and another Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2004(1) EFR 22, in which Apex Court held that move oral evidence as to their features and production of Panchnama does not discharge the heavy burden lies on the prosecution to prove the seizure of contraband articles. He also placed reliance on apex court judgment passed in Noor Aga Vs state of Cr.A.No.1042/2002 Punjab and others, reported in (2008) 16 scc 417 and this Court's judgment passed in the case of Liyaqat Ali Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2009(1) EFR 114. but these judgements do not give any assistance to the appellant because in this case it is clear from para 16 of the statement of P.C.Chasta (PW-3) that at the time of his statement prosecution produced article A1 and A2 sample of seized opium and Court also examined the sealed packets and from Ex.P/37, it is also proved that remaining material was disposed of after taking photos of material by order of JMFC, Jawad according to provisions of section 52A of the act.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that from the prosecution evidence it is not proved that P.C.Chasta informed the higher police officers about the information received by him from the informant and complied with the provisions of section 42 of the Act.Only what appear is that he sent the information to Jagdish (PW-5)
15. But that argument has also no force. It is clear from the statement of Jagdish (PW-5) that P.C.Chasta (PW-3) sent the information to SDOP, Jawad and that information was received by Jagdish (PW-5), who was posted in the office of SDOP, Jawad at the time of incident. P.C.Chasta (PW-3) clearly deposed that on 1.7.2000 after receiving information from informant he sent that information to SDOP, Jawad through Laxman Singh. In this regard statement of P.C.Chasta also corroborated from the statement of Jagdish (PW-5), who clearly deposed that on 1.7.2000 he was posted as Head Constable at SDOP Office, Jawad. On that date Head Constable Laxman Singh came there and gave latter Ex.P/4 along with informant information Panchnama and memo of not getting search warrant. After receiving that document he gave receipt on Ex.P/4 to Laxman Singh. This proved substantial compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
16. Even otherwise Section 42 of the NDPS Act only provides that if any officer authorized under section 42 of the Act had reason to believe Cr.A.No.1042/2002 from personal knowledge or the information given by any person, he had to take down in writing that the offence punishable under the NDPS Act has been committed. Under provision of sub-section (2) of section 42 it is also incumbent on the investigating officer to send a copy of the information taken down by him to his immediate superior official. it is not incumbent on the investigating officer that before receipt of information to his immediate superior official he would not proceed to the spot and from bare reading of the provisions of section 41 to 43 of act it appears that in searching any person in a public place for any search and seizure of the narcotic drug in a conveyance the provisions of section 41 and 42 of NDPS Act , are not applicable, but the provisions of Section 43 are applicable and that the provisions of Section 43 NDPS Act, are not violated.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act is not proved in the the absence of compliance of Section 50 the conviction cannot be sustained. In this regard he placed reliance on Apex Court judgment passed in State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, reported in 1999 Cri.L.J. 3672, in which Apex Court held that when empowered officer or a duly authorized officer acting on prior information is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to inform the concerned person of his right under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of being taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or the nearest Magistrate for making the search. However, such information may not necessarily be in writing, the failure to inform the concerned person about the existence of his right to be searched before a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate would cause prejudice to an accused. A search made, by an empowered officer, on prior information, without informing the person of his right that, if he so requires, he shall be taken before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate for search and in case he so opts, failure to conduct his search before Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, may not vitiate the trial but would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction Cr.A.No.1042/2002 and sentence of an accused, where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of the possession of the illicit article, recovered from his person, during a search conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act.
18. But this pronouncement of apex court do not help appellant because in this case P.C. Chasta (PW-3) clearly deposed that he informed appellant that "if you wish you may be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate". In this regard his statement is also corroborated from Ex.P/5 and Ex.P/6. This is the substantial compliance with the requirement of Section 50. Even otherwise opium was not recovered from the personal possession of appellant. The opium was seized from the dickey of the motorcycle on which appellant was riding at the time of incident. In that circumstances provisions of Section 50 does not applicable in the case. Apex court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ranbir alias Rana, (2006) 5 SCC
167., State of H.P. v. Pawan kumar, (2005) 4 SCC 350, State of Haryana v. Ranbir alias Rana, (2006) 5 SCC 167. And State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram (2005) 7 SCC 36, State of Punjab Vs Makhan Chand (2004) 3 SCC 453, clearly held that NDPS Act, 1985- section 50 (i) search of person--search of bag, articles, container or other baggage carried by accused is not search of person.
19. So from the statement of P.C.Chasta (PW-3), which is corroborated by other evidence it is proved that on 1.7.2000 at about 1.30 Noon appellant was apprehended with illegal black material (opium) at Nagthun Road on Rajdoot motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-09-O-0584.
20. Upendra Singh (PW-8) deposed that he was posted as Head Constable Moharir at P.S., Jawad. On that day P.C.Chasta, the then SHO, P.S., Jawad gave seized packet of Article A/1 to A/3 and one Rajdoot motorcycle for keeping in safe custody in strong room of P.S., Jawad. He deposited that article in strong room of P.S., Jawad and entered this information in Malkhana register Ex.P/35 and on 4.7.2000 Cr.A.No.1042/2002 he gave sample Article A/1 to Constable Shailendra Singh No.192 for taking that sample to FSL for analysis.
21. Shailendra Singh (PW-6) also deposed that on 4.7.2000 he took Article A (sample of seized material) from P.S., Jawad and went to FSL, Rau and on 6.7.2000 deposited there. His statement is also corroborated by Ex.P/29 receipt taken by him from FSL. Raghunath (PW-7) also deposed that he sent seized article alongwith letter Ex.P/32 through S.P., Mandsaur to FSL Rao, from FSL analysis report Ex.P/33 was received.In report Ex.P/33 it is mentioned that coagulated juice of opium was found in Article A/1, which contains 4.06% morphine.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is not proved from the prosecution evidence as to where was the material kept after being seized from the possession of appellant and before sending it for analysis. From the statement of Shailendra Singh (PW-6) it appears that he received Article A/1 from P.S., Jawad on 4.7.2000, while he deposited that article in FSL, Rau on 6.7.2000, which creates doubt on the fact that the substance, which was sent for analysis was the same as seized from possession of the appellant. So it cannot be said that the report Ex.P/33 produced by the prosecution in evidence is regarding the same material, which was seized from the possession of appellant. In this regard learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on Rajasthan High Court's judgment passed in Saudan and another Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2002 Cri.L.J.4816 ,Madras High Court's judgment passed in the case of Selvam Vs. State, reported in 2003 Cri.L.J.4656 and Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment passed in the case of Lal Singh Vs State of Punjab, reported in 1996 EFR page 227. But the facts of these cases do not match with the facts of instant case. So Those judgments do not help the appellant. Apex Court in Gurbax Singh Vs State of Haryana, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 28 and in Babubhai Odhavji Patel and others Vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 725, Cr.A.No.1042/2002 held that provisions under section 52,55 and 57 of the act are not mandatory and are only directory. The law is well settled that if there is no compliance of Section 55 of NDPS Act, this by itself will not entitle the accused to acquittal, unless it is shown that any prejudice is caused to the accused because of non compliance.
23. In this case the prosecution adduced evidence to prove that these provisions have been substantially complied with and the Sessions Judge discussed these matters in detail and accepted the prosecution case. From the statement of P.C.Chasta (PW-3) and Upendra Singh (PW-8) as discussed above it is clearly proved that the aforesaid material was seized and sealed by P.C.Chasta (PW-3) on the spot who himself was S.H.O. P.S., Jawad at the time of incident and deposited it in Malkhana of P.S., Jawad and on 4.7.2000. From that material Article A/1 was sent for analysis to FSL, Rau. Although, the sample was received by Shailendra Singh (PW-6) on 4.7.2000 from P.S., Jawad but he deposited it to FSL, Rau on 6.7.2000. But he clearly deposed that on 5.7.2000 he went to Bilpank for service of summon and then he came to Indore on 6.7.2000. Appellant has not challenged his statement in cross-examination. FSL report Ex.P/33 dated 19.7.2000 states that a letter along with a sealed packet was received with seals intact. The said report further mentions that packet was covered in cloth and on opening of the packet, the examiner found a packet of cigarette and the substance on examination was found to be an coagulated juice of opium in which 4.06% morphine was present. The seal being intact, the description of the case number and the impression of seal having been fixed on memo of recovery. Under these circumstances, the Court ruled that the said facts clearly prove and establish that there was no tampering with the aforesaid seal in the sample at any stage and the sample received by the analyst for chemical examination contained the same opium which was recovered from the possession of the appellant.
Cr.A.No.1042/200224. P.C.Chasta (PW-3) also deposed that after investigation he sent a detailed information report of Crime No.197/2000 registered for the offence under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act to SDOP, Jawad according to Section 57 of NDPS Act and also produced receipt Ex.P/13. This facts is also corroborated by the statement of Jagdish (PW-5), who clearly deposed that on the eve of 1.7.2000 Constable Khem Singh gave a detailed report of Crime No.197/2000 registered at P.S., Jawad. After receiving that report he gave receipt Ex.P/13 to Khem Singh. So the compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act also proved therefrom.
25. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that P.C.Chasta (PW-3) falsely implicated the appellant in the case. Appellant Was not caught by P.C.Chasta (PW-3) on the spot while taking illegal opium but was caught from Nimbaheda Rajasthan and falsely implicated in the case. In this regard appellant also produced Nandlal (DW-1), Bakshuram (DW-2) and Kailash Singh (DW-3) in his defence. Nandlal (DW-1) deposed that on 1.7.2000, he had come to Nimbabha to sell the crop. The appellant also came with him when he was returning after selling the crop. At that time, on the way near Shankarlal's well one Jeep came towards Nimbaheda and some persons caught hold of Arjun Singh/appellant and forcibly took him in the Jeep. He also reported the incident at P.S., Nimbaheda and also complained about this incident to S.P., Nimbaheda. He also produced copy of that complaint Ex.D/1. Bakshurai (DW-2) also corroborated his statement. Appellant also produced Kailash Singh (DW-3), who also deposed that on 1.7.2000 he was posted at P.S., Nimbaheda and on that day he had received an information that some persons forcibly took one person in a Jeep towards Nimbaheda. On that he entered that information in daily diary Ex.D/3 and went to Neemuch Road Toll Tax Naka where a person present on Naka informed him that one jeep no. M.P.F.2383 had gone towards Nayagawn. He entered this fact also in daily diary Ex.D/4.
Cr.A.No.1042/200226. But P.C.Chasta in his cross-examination clearly denied from that suggestion that he arrested appellant Arjun Singh on 30.6.2000 from Village Magraul or falsely implicated him in this case. In this regard statement of Nandlal (DW-1), Baksurai (DW-2) are not trustworthy. Nandlal(DW-1) admitted in his cross-examination that he lodged report Ex.D/1 after one month of the incident. Appellant also did not produce any evidence regarding the fact that whether police found the allegation mentioned in the report correct or that they filed a chargesheet against P.C.Chasta PW 3 in this regard. Baksurai (DW-2) also admitted in his cross-examination that he got the report Ex.D/2 written by a Lawyer and lodged that report after meeting appellant in Jail two to four times, which shows that Nandlal (DW-1) and Baksurai (DW-2) logged false report only to protect appellant from the offence. Likewise from the statement of Kailash (DW3) it does not appear that P.C.Chasta took appellant in the said Jeep. There is no evidence on record that P.C.Chasta had any animosity with appellant or he otherwise has any reason to falsely implicate him in the case. The special Judge also discussed defence evidence in detail and did not find it to be correct. So defence of appellant that P.C.Chasta arrested him from Nimbaheda Rajasthan and falsely implicated him in the case do not appear to be correct.
27. So from the prosecution evidence as discussed above it is clearly proved against the appellant that on 1.7.2000 at about 1.30 noon he was carrying 7 Kg.250 gms. of illegal opium and was apprehended by Police at Nagthun Road on Rajdoot motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-09-O-0584. The learned trial Court has not committed any mistake in finding the appellant guilty under Section 8/18 (C) of NDPS Act.
28. The sentence for ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for three years, is quite Cr.A.No.1042/2002 adequate and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment. Hence, appeal filed by the accused stands dismissed. The appellant, who is in the custody, shall serve the remaining part of the sentence, in accordance with law Accordingly, appeal stands disposed of.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge /05/2017 Patil