TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 706
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....village Palasiya on duty. While coming back from village Palasiya after conducting an inquiry in a complaint filed under Section 174 Cr. P.C., he found Truck No.MP- 14-/1765 parked on a road outside the village Zhantla. On checking the lorry, he found 10 bags of poppy straw, a narcotic drug under the NDPS Act, in the truck. On inquiry, the Appellant who was the driver of the truck produced permit No.198 dated 13.07.2000 issued by the District Excise Officer, Neemuch for transportation of poppy straw from the cultivators of villages Patial, Fusariya, and Dhogaon from 9:00 a.m. till 8:00 p.m. on 14.07.2000. The licence also contained names of the cultivators from the above villages. The Appellant disclosed to the Head Constable that he loaded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a). Whether, the seized material is the psychotropic substance poppy straw i.e. is the Dodachura? b). Whether, the accused in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act, or the rules made thereunder, has kept in his possession 415 kilograms of poppy straws, or transported or purchased or sold. c). Whether, the accused has committed any offence. 4. The Trial Court also framed issues under Section 8 read with Section 26 of the Act which are as follows: a). Whether, the holder of the licence, permit or authorization granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder or any person in his employ and action on his behalf has failed to produce without any reasonable cause such licence, permit or au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the seized poppy straw were not produced in the Court in view of the admission made by the Appellant regarding the search and the seizure. The main point that was argued on behalf of the Appellant before the Trial Court was that the breach of conditions of the licence would result only in conviction under Section 8 read with Section 26 of the NDPS Act and not Section 15 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution was unable to prove the offence under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act. The Trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence on record and interpretation of Sections 8, 15, and 26 of the NDPS Act, concluded that the Appellant was guilty of the offence under Section 8 read with Section 15 (c) of the NDPS Act. The Trial Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... licence. He submitted that the Appellant has undergone a sentence of 8 years and he is on bail which was granted by this Court on 05.07.2010 and a lenient view may be taken by this Court. 8. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State, has submitted that the seizure of poppy straw was admitted by the Appellant and there was no need for the prosecution to further prove the seizure. As the defence of the Appellant was that the transportation is on the basis of a valid licence, it was for the Appellant to prove that the purchase of the poppy straw was from the persons whose names are found in the licence. He took us through Sections 8, 15, and 26 of the NDPS Act to argue that Sections 15 and 26 operate in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees." *** *** *** *** "26. Punishment for certain acts by licensee or his servants. - If the holder of any licence, permit or authorisation granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder or any person in his employ and acting on his behalf (a) omits, without any reasonable cause, to maintain accounts or to submit any return in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or any rule made t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 10 bags of poppy straw from a truck which was stationed at village Palasiya. The only defence before the Courts below was that the transportation was legal as it was being done on the strength of a valid licence issued by a competent authority. The truck was standing on a road near village Palasiya which is 18 kilometers away from one of the villages which is mentioned in the license and from where the Appellant could have loaded and transported the poppy straw according to the licence. The conclusion of the Trial Court regarding the guilt of the Appellant under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act does not call for any interference. The defence of the Appellant is that the truck was standing near the village Palasiya as it coul....