KARIM HUSSAIN SOHRA SINDHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, by the sessions Judge, Rajkot and was sentenced to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs one lakh in default of which, further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. The said conviction and sentence has been affirmed by the High Court of Gujarat and hence he is in appeal before us.

(2.) It is the prosecution case that on 14-6-1998 at about 1 p. m. PW 1, the police Inspector received information that the appellant was selling brown sugar near New Kankai Hotel. On the receipt of the said information he sent a report to Police Control Room, Rajkot and made the necessary entry in the station diary and proceeded to the place where the appellant was allegedly selling brown sugar. On identifying the appellant therein he informed the appellant that he was going to search his person, therefore in law if he wanted that the search should be by a gazetted officer or by a Magistrate as required under Section 50, same will be arranged, but he refused such offer and agreed to be searched by PW 1 and on such search of the appellant it was found that he was carrying 2.200 gm of brown sugar, packed and kept in fifty-nine separate packets. PW 1 also found in his possession Rs 1700 in cash. He seized the narcotic drugs and also the cash found on the person of the accused and made panchnama of the same and sent the sample for chemical examination and on being found that the seized brown sugar did contain the prohibited substance, the petitioner was charged for offence punishable under Section 22 of the NDPS Act as stated above.

(3.) Ms Sharda Devi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that none of the independent witnesses has supported the prosecution case. Therefore it is not safe to accept the prosecution case. We have examined the record and we have no hesitation in rejecting this contention raised on behalf of the appellant as has been done by the two courts below.