(1.) BOTH the appellants, who were original accused persons in Sessions Case No.389 of 2006 came to be convicted by the learned Addl.Principal Judge, Court No.2, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad by judgment and order dated 14.09.2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and Section 22 r/w.Section 8(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') and each of them was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.50000/-, and in default of payment of fine, RI for 6 months for the offence punishable u/s.20(b)(ii)(B) r/w.8(C) of the NDPS Act and RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.1 Lac, and in default of payment of fine, RI for one year for the offence punishable u/s.22 r/w.Section 8(C) of the NDPS Act. BOTH the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and they were held to be entitled to the benefit of set-off.
(2.) THE prosecution case as unfolded during the trial was that while Senior PSI Kalupur police station Mr.I.M.Kumpavat along with other police personnels was on patrolling duty on 10.8.2006, and when they reached near Kalupur railway station, they found both the appellants
(3.) MR.K.P.Raval, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the respondent " State submitted that considering the relevant provisions contained under the NDPS Act and more particularly considering the definition of Psychotropic Substance together with list of psychotropic substances contained in the schedule attached to the NDPS Act, there cannot be any dispute that the contraband substance 'Ganja', which came to be seized in this case cannot be termed as Psychotropic Substance, which is made punishable u/s.22 of the NDPS Act. However, MR.Raval, learned APP submitted that so far as the conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial Court for the offences punishable u/s.20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and the sentence passed thereunder should not be interfered with as considering the seriousness of the offence, the sentence is just and appropriate.