These appellants were tried along with two other accused by the
Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Mandsore(M.P.) for the offences punishable under
Section 18 read with Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). The prosecution case was that the
Superintendent-M.C.Vijay of the Central Bureau of Narcotics, along with
other officers, were on patrol duty on 1.5.1997 and at about 9.45 p.m. they
intercepted the truck-DIG 4753. Two persons were in the truck and when
they stopped the truck and thereafter started running away and the
Inspector A.K.Tulsidasan apprehended them. The truck was searched in the
presence of the witnesses and it was found that 2.10 KGs of Opium and 8
KGs of Dodachura were also found in the truck. The officers prepared a
mazhar and seized the articles and a case was registered against two accused
viz. Shri Hardeo Singh and Daljeet Singh. On questioning these two accused,
officers came to know that Opium was sold by the present appellants
Abbas
Khan and Azam Khan. P.W.6 issued a notice under Section 67 of the Act to
the appellants and their statements were taken. In their statements they
admitted having sold Opium to other accused who were also travelling in the
truck.
After the trial the Special Judge found all the four guilty under
Section 18 of the Act and they were sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1 lac each. In the appeal filed by the
accused, the High Court confirmed the conviction. The first and second
accused Hardeo Singh and Daljeet Singh did not prefer any appeal while
accused nos.3 and 4 have filed the present appeals before this Court.
Heard both sides.
The prosecution relied on the admission made under Section 67
of the Act by these two accused before P.W.6 but we notice that the
contraband articles allegedly seized from the first and second accused were
not shown to the present two appellants and there is no evidence to show
that the very same articles were seized by the officers in the course of
investigation. There is practically no evidence to show as to how much
quantity of articles were allegedly sold by these appellants. However, we do
not think that the statements made by these accused are inadmissible in
evidence as they were made under Section 67 of the Act. At the same time
the evidence adduced would only prove that they had dealt with narcotic
drugs and to that extent the admission is valid. As the
quantity itself is not proved, one could only say that it is not possible to
assume that they were dealing with any commercial quantity of contraband
articles, which offence by itself is of a very serious nature. The prosecution
should have produced better evidence to sustain such conviction.
Under the above circumstances, we hold that the accused could
only be convicted under Section 18(b) of the Act. We are told that the
appellants have already undergone a fairly long period of sentence. There is
no evidence that they were dealing with any commercial quantity of these
contraband articles. Therefore, we confirm the conviction. In our opinion,
the sentence already undergone by the appellants is sufficient to meet the
ends of justice. We direct the appellants to be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the fine imposed is also not paid so far. The fine so imposed upon the
appellants is also waived off.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.