2007 (9) TMI 662 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Illegal possession of commercial quantity of poppy straw powder and fragments.
2. Illegal sale of 30 kgs. of poppy straw to accused no.2.
3. Illegal sale of 30 kgs. of poppy straw to accused no.2 who did not hold a license to purchase such a substance.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Illegal Possession of Commercial Quantity of Poppy Straw Powder and Fragments:

The appellant was convicted for possessing 5652 kgs. of poppy straw from premises at 6 Pravin Chambers. The defense argued that the premises were licensed, and the confusion arose due to erroneous address descriptions. Evidence showed that the accused had a license for storing 20,000 kgs. of poppy straw. The prosecution could not prove that the seized stock was from a different location than the licensed premises. The court noted that the address discrepancies were not deliberate and resulted from misunderstandings. Consequently, the conviction for illegal possession was quashed as the stock was within the licensed capacity and stored in the licensed premises.

2. Illegal Sale of 30 kgs. of Poppy Straw to Accused No.2:

The appellant was convicted for the illegal sale of 30 kgs. of poppy straw to accused no.2 without issuing bills and on a cash basis. The prosecution presented evidence, including statements and registers, showing the sale transaction. The raiding party intercepted accused no.2 with the poppy straw and confirmed the purchase from accused no.1. The court upheld the conviction based on the clear evidence of the illegal sale transaction.

3. Illegal Sale of 30 kgs. of Poppy Straw to Accused No.2 Who Did Not Hold a License:

The appellant was also convicted for selling 30 kgs. of poppy straw to accused no.2, who lacked a valid license. The prosecution proved that accused no.2 did not possess the necessary license to purchase or possess poppy straw. The registers and statements corroborated multiple illegal transactions between the appellant and accused no.2. The court confirmed the conviction, noting that these transactions were conducted without proper documentation or adherence to licensing requirements.

Conclusion:

The appeal succeeded partly. The conviction for illegal possession of commercial quantity of poppy straw was quashed due to address discrepancies and the stock being within the licensed capacity. However, the convictions for the illegal sale of 30 kgs. of poppy straw to accused no.2 and the sale to an unlicensed individual were upheld. The court emphasized the appellant's engagement in repeated illegal transactions without proper documentation.

Final Judgment:

The order of conviction and sentence for illegal possession was quashed, while the convictions for illegal sale transactions were confirmed. The related bail application was disposed of as it no longer survived.