MAHERAJ MAYUDDIN SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers.

(2.) THE appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act" for short). The appellant was charged for possessing and selling approximately 1067 grams of opium derivatives.

(3.) THE only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, while relying upon Pratapbhai Surjibhai Dodiyar Vs. State of Gujarat, 2011 CrLR 585 and Chandrasingh @ Bbharat Maansingh Waghela and others Vs. State of Gujarat, 2011 CrLR 402, is that even if it is assumed that the appellants possessed for sale opium derivatives, the FSL Report does not show what was the pure quantity of diacetylmorphine and therefore, as per the above decisions, the punishment should have been one step lower than the quantity found i.e. small, commercial or more than small and lesser than commercial. Learned counsel relied upon the FSL Report to point out that what was detected was crude di -acetyl -morphine and not pure. The learned counsel also invited the attention of this Court to Clause -56 in notification specifying small quantity and commercial quantity and submitted that the small quantity was 5 grams whereas commercial 250 grams and in the instant case, 1067 grams of crude di -acetyl -morphine is found and therefore, if one step below the commercial quantity is considered then, the punishment could not have been more than four or five years.