The State Of Rajasthan vs Sahi Ram

3. On receiving source information on 20.06.2006 that in a white coloured Tavera vehicle bearing registration No.RJ27-TC-0323 three persons were coming from Madhya Pradesh along with contraband material namely poppy straw and were proceeding towards Jodhpur, the information was reduced to writing and a copy was immediately forwarded Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2019.09.27 to the superior officers in terms of requirements of Section 42 of the 17:00:42 IST Reason: 1 The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur Criminal Appeal No .1497 of 2019 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.8428 of 2016 State of Rajasthan vs. Sahi Ram 2 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”).

4. A team was thereafter constituted which reached the Railway crossing near petrol pump Nimbahera. Two private persons named Kishan Lal and Chaman Lal were asked to associate as Panchas. At 9.40 AM, the vehicle was seen coming from Neemuch and was stopped. The vehicle was being driven by the respondent while the other two occupants were identified as Sohan and Kanhaiya Lal. After following mandatory requirements under the provisions of the NDPS Act, the vehicle was searched, during which seven bags of poppy straw, the gross weight being 223 kgs were found behind the driver’s seat. From every bag two samples of 500 grams were taken and two such samples were sealed. Remaining quantity of 2500 grams was put in a separate pouch. The bags weighing about 223 kgs were also sealed. Punchnama to that effect was recorded which bore the signatures of the respondent and other persons.

6. The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses in support of its case. PW15, Surender Singh, from Police Station Nimbahera had entered the information in Rojnamcha and had intimated the superior officials. As regards the recovery of the contraband material he stated:-

9. Taking the cumulative effect of all the circumstances, it appears to us that the material placed on record by the prosecution does not bring home the charge beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the view that upon the material placed on record it would be unsafe to convict the appellants. They are certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt.” (emphasis added)

18. In the aforesaid premises the conclusion drawn by the High Court was completely unsustainable and the High Court erred in extending the benefit of acquittal to the respondent. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the view taken by the High Court and restore the order of conviction as recorded by the trial court against the respondent in its judgment and order dated 01.08.2015. The minimum sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with 15 of the NDPS Act is 10 years.

Considering the facts on record, in our view the appropriate sentence would be Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years as substantive sentence. We order accordingly, keeping the other parts of sentence namely sentence of fine and sentence in default of payment of fine as ordered by the trial court, intact and unchanged.

19. The appeal stands allowed in aforesaid terms.

20. We direct the respondent to surrender before the concerned Police Station within seven days from today, failing which, the respondent shall immediately be taken in custody by the concerned police station. Criminal Appeal No .1497 of 2019 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.8428 of 2016 State of Rajasthan vs. Sahi Ram 16 A copy of this order of this Court shall be sent to the concerned CJM as well as the Police Station for intimation and compliance.

September 27, 2019.