Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 753 (MP)

BHERU v. STATE OF M. P.

2008-06-23

S.L.KOCHAR

body2008
Judgment S.L.Kochar, J. ( 1. ) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgement dated 22/03/95 passed in S.T.No. 138/94 by learned Session Judge, Ratlam, whereby convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short the Act), sentenced to R.I for one year and fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for three months. ( 2. ) According to prosecution case, on 13.8.94 PW-5, Station House Officer, Shri Shivram Dandotiya received information from informant that in village Babdikheda in the field of appellant between the crop of cotton and maize cannabis plant were also grown. Memorandum Ex.P/2 was prepared regarding informer information and copy of the same was sent to the senior police officer. The Station House Officer reached in the filed of the appellant and apprised him about the informer report. PW-5 Shivram Dandotiya effected the seizure of cannabis plant, total 2090. Out of this plants some plants were seized separately as a sample and same were sent to the laboratory. According to laboratory report Ex.P/1 plants were of- cannabis. On due investigation, appellant was charge sheeted for commission of offence under Section 8/20 of the Act. ( 3. ) Appellant denied the charges and pleaded false implication. ( 4. ) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record, it emerged that no independent witness has supported the prosecution case regarding seizure of cannabis plants frorri the field exclusively in possession of the appellant for the purposes of establishing the charge of growing or cultivating cannabis. The prosecution is required to prove that the appellant was in exclusive possession of the field from where the cannabis plants were seized and he was having conscious possession of contraband article. In the instant case, on this issue only witness is PW-5 Investigating Officer Shivram Dandotiya, who has proved a copy of the land record Ex.P/16 and map of the field Ex.P/17, but he has nowhere stated that this documents were issued by which Government officer in discharge of official duty and whose handwriting and signatures are present on these documents. In the instant case, on this issue only witness is PW-5 Investigating Officer Shivram Dandotiya, who has proved a copy of the land record Ex.P/16 and map of the field Ex.P/17, but he has nowhere stated that this documents were issued by which Government officer in discharge of official duty and whose handwriting and signatures are present on these documents. These documents have not been proved in accordance with the provision of Section 67 of the Evidence Act, which reads as under :- 67.- Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced. If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person., the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that persons handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting. ( 5. ) In paragraph-13, the Investigating Officer has stated only this much that he obtained the trace map and copy of land record from the Patwari vide Ex.P/16 and P/17. He has not even disclosed the name of Patwari and nowhere stated that both documents were prepared in the handwriting by the concerned Patwari and also signed by the said Patwari. It is crystal clear from the statement of PW- 5 Shivram Dandotiya that documents Ex.P/16 and P/17 have not been proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 67 of the Evidence Act (supra). The prosecution case also affected on the ground of non-examination of Patwari, who was the main witness for proving the documents regarding ownership as well as possession of the field from where cannabis plants were seized. Appellant has specifically denied the ownership as well as possession of the field and seizure of the plants. ( 6. ) In view of the above-mentioned discussion, in the opinion of this Court, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, this appeal is allowed, conviction and sentence of the appellant are hereby set aside. Appellant is on bail, his bail and surety bonds stand discharged. Appeal allowed.