DINESHBHAI DHEMENRAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .Could it be said that the accused was afforded with an opportunity of effective and efficient hearing and paragon and promising, putative and palliative Legal Aid in a serious and major Criminal trial, wherein, minimum sentence, statutorily prescribed is 10 years and minimum penalty of fine is Rs. 1,00,000 ? It is the heart and main theme of this Conviction Appeal, on hand.

(2.) . In this appeal under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant-original-accused has assailed the legality and validity of the judgment and sentence order recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge on 19th September, 1998 in N.D.P.S. Case No. 3 of 1998, whereby, the accused came to be convicted for having committed offence punishable under Sec. 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short N.D.P.S. Act) and after hearing him on the quantum of sentence and considering the fact that wife of the accused who is suffering from deadly disease like cancer and in whose family there is none to take care of his wife, came to be convicted minimum sentence of ten years rigourous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default to undergo R.I. for one year more.

(3.) . The learned advocate for the accused appointed under Legal Aid Scheme, by this Court, has raised the following three contentions : (1) That the impugned judgment and sentence could not be sustained as the accused was not afforded real and sufficient opportunity to defend his case as he could not afford private legal services on account of the extreme poverty and indigence and without understanding the nature and type of charge under N.D.P.S. Act, which carries minimum sentence of ten years and minimum fine of Rs. 1 lac under Sec. 20(b)(ii) remaining ignorant and indifferent about the scheme and the assistance of the Advocate at the Government cost, which has resulted into great amount of miscarriage of justice. (2) That the accused person was not real culprit and he became scapegoat and the real don got escaped and he is wrongly involved in the serious offence of N.D.P.S. Act. That many such innocent and indigent and under privileged persons are made victims for saving skin of Dons and Mafias. (3) That the entire approach of the trial Court in reaching to the conclusion which is under challenge is not only unjust, unreasonable, but is illegal, and therefore, the impugned conviction judgment and sentence order must be quashed.