ISMAILKHAN AIYUBKHAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There were 6 accused before the Additional Sessions Court at ahmedabad to face the trial for the offence under Section 20 (b) read with section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Sessions Judge convicted 5 out of them and acquitted the 6lh man Indrajitsing Shivpalsing. The remaining 5 were convicted under the aforesaid sections and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of rs 1,00,000. All the convicted persons preferred an appeal before the High court of Gujarat. A Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed their appeal. It appears that 2nd accused Saeed Suleman Shah has accepted the verdict of the High Court and he did not bother to come to this Court but the remaining convicted persons filed these appeals by special leave, as per separate special leave petitions.

(2.) The summary of the prosecution case is the following: pw 7 Inspector of Police of Crime Branch in the Vigilance Squad got some sleuth information on 6-5-1991 that illicit trafficking was going on in the room on the 1st floor of a building which was in the possession of one nasir. He also got information that the said Nasir had kept a stock of "charas" and was dealing with the same through his servants. On the strength of the aforesaid information PW 7 along with other police personnel reached the said building for the purpose of catching the culprits. He called out the name of Nasir but none came out holding that name. However, when he entered the room he found all the 6 accused persons therein. He found a gunny bag being kept in the corner of the room. It was opened and the substance therein was tested with the help of Shri B. N. Dave, who came by that way (that person is said to be an expert attached to the Forensic Science laboratory). Mr Dave conducted an "on-the-spot scientific test" and proclaimed that the substance was "charas".

(3.) It is unnecessary for us to go into the other evidence because we will assume that whatever PW 7 has said is correct and the rest of the evidence for the prosecution had only supported the version of PW 7. But the question is how the appellants can be fastened with the liability for possession of the contraband article wrapped in the gunny bag which was kept in the room.