Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhanwar Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 8 February, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 839 of 1998
BETWEEN:-
BHAWER SINGH S/O RUP SINGH,
AGE: 33 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST
R/O DORVADA, P.S. NARAYANGARH,
DIST. MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH INSPECTOR SHANKAR
YADAV, OFFICE-DISTRICT OPIUM
OFFICER, THIRD BLOCK, NEEMUCH, DIST. MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MANOJ SONI - ADVOCATE)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
The present appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved
by the judgment passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Special
Case No.57/94 on 06.07.1998 wherein the appellant has been convicted under
Section 8/18 of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine
of Rs.1 Lac, in case of default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo
additional 2 years RI.
2. The prosecution case U.K. Shrivastava, District Opium Officer, D.P.
Shrivastava and other employees had held a camp on 20.04.1994. They
received an intimation from the Mukhbir that opium contraband has been
concealed in the house of the appellant. On the said intimation, a team of senior
officers in the leadership of District Opium Officer was constituted and they
conducted a raid. Two panchas of the village namely, Bhavani Singha and Devi
Singh were called. In the presence of the independent witnesses, a search was
conducted and the accused admitted that opium is kept in a room on the
western side. The said room was opened by him with the help of key and he
handed over one bag kept in the corner of the said room containing black
substance in a plastic bag. On physical verification, it was found that the same
was opium. Two samples were taken from the said bag of 25 grams each and
they were sealed. The accused was arrested. In compliance to the provisions of
Section 57, the matter was submitted before the senior officer and Kripa
Shankar Yadav was appointed as investigating officer and he was authorised for
obtaining sample and other documents. The sample was sent to FSL and in the
FSL report, the same was confirmed to be contraband opium. The quantity was
4 Kg 100 Grams. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was filed.
3. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The first issue was framed by the trial Court that
whether from the house belonging to the applicant and his possession, 4 Kg 100
Gram illegal opium was seized ? And the other issue was that whether
mandatory provisions of NDPS Act were followed ?
4. The prosecution examined PW-8 D.P. Shrivastava, who was the
seizing officer. He deposed in his statement from para - 1 to 6 that on
28.04.1994, he was working as Inspector in Piplya Mandi Opium Weighing
Center. On getting an intimation that illegal contraband is kept in the house of
the appellant which is intended to be sold, he sent intimation to the senior
officers and an investigation team was constituted. The intimation was accepted
as Ex.P/2 on which his signatures are there. They went to the village and two
panchas, independent witnesses namely Devi Singh and Bhavani Singh were
called. They conducted a raid in the house. The appellant was present in the
house and he admitted that contraband is concealed in his house. He opened
the door of one room and handed over one bag containing the black substance.
On physical verification, the same was found to be opium. He further deposed
that on weighing the quantity of the contraband was found 4 Kg 100 gram and
from the same, two samples of 25 grams each were taken and were sent for
chemical examination and the remaining opium was sealed. Seizure memo is
Ex.P/3 and samples is Ex.P/4. The accused was arrested vide Ex.P/5
panchnama. The spot map is Ex.P/6 and the statement of accused was
recorded which is Ex.P/7.
5. After effecting the seizure and obtaining the sample of opium, he
prepared FIR and the same was submitted to District Opium Officer vide
Ex.P/6 which bears his signature. Test memo is Ex.P/13. These panchnama is
also put a signature of the accused person. His testimony has been supported
by independent witnesses PW-5 Bhavani Singh and PW-1 Abdul Kareem. They
stated that the accused is known to them and the house belongings to him and
the same was in his possession. Apart from that PW-7 Kripa Shankar Yadav,
Investigating Officer also proved Ex.P/11 to establish the fact that the
contraband was seized from the possession of the house of the appellant. Thus,
the prosecution with the evidence of PW-8 D.P. Shrivastava, PW-7 Kripa
Shankar Yadav and testimony of independent witnesses Devi Singh and Abdul
Kareem proved the fact that the house belongings to the appellant and the
contraband was in possession of the appellant. The prosecution witnesses
Kripa Shankar Yadav (PW-7), D.P. Shrivastava (PW-8) and U.K. Shrivastava
(PW-3) by producing notification proved that they come within the definition of
police officer and were competent to affect the seizure. Thus, the provision of
Section 42 were complied with. So far the provisions of Section 50 is
concerned, since the seizure has been made from the house of the appellant, the
same would not apply. From the testimony of these witnesses, it is established
that the provisions of Section 42 to 56 are complied. From their cross-
examination or defence witnesses nothing has come on record to disbelieve
from their testimony.
6. So far the seized contraband is opium or not the said fact is
established by the testimony of PW-3 UK Shrivastava and FSL report Ex.P/14
that the seized contraband was opium. Thus, the prosecution has successfully
proved that the contraband whose quantity is more than commercial quantity
was seized from the house and possession of the appellant. The contraband has
been proved to be opium.
7. In view of the aforesaid assimilation of facts and evidence, this Court
does not find any merit in the appeal and there is no illegality in the order of
conviction and sentence. The appeal is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
soumya
