STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JAGJIVAN MAGANLAL VALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 3rd February, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Sessions Case No.259 of 1993, whereby he has acquitted the respondents ­ accused of the offence punishable under section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act") as well as the offence punishable under section 66(i)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.

(2.) THE facts stated briefly are that on 29 th March, 1993, the complainant, a Senior Police Sub Inspector of Mahudha Police Station was going to village Sastapur along with other police officials for investigating into an offence registered with Mahudha Police Station. At that time, at about 06.00 p.m., when they were near patiya of village Khadol, they received an information that two persons had come with ganja and were looking for customers for selling the same and were sitting near the gate of Nathiba Ashram in a public place. Upon receipt of such information, the Police Sub Inspector called two panchas from the vicinity and apprised them of the said information and then upon their consenting to act as panchas, they had proceeded to the gate of Nathiba Ashram. When they reached there, they saw two persons sitting near the gate of Nathiba Ashram. They inquired about their names and searched both of them one by one and, ganja weighing 950 grams was found in a plastic bag contained in a white cloth bag in the possession of the accused No.1 ­ Jagjivan Maganlal Valand and three packets containing 5 grams of ganja in each bag were found in the possession of the accused No.2 ­ Bhailalbhai Narottambhai Vasava. Accordingly, a panchnama came to be drawn in the presence of the panchas and the accused were arrested. Pursuant thereto, an offence came to be registered against the accused persons under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The Police Sub Inspector - Shri Pathak who had carried out search, also took over the investigation and upon completion thereto, filed a charge- sheet before the concerned court on 8.7.1993.

(3.) MR . K. L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor invited the attention of the court to the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to submit that the sole ground on which the accused have been acquitted of the offences in question, is on the ground of breach of the provisions of section 50 of the NDPS Act. It was submitted that the prosecution, through the depositions of the police witnesses, has duly proved the compliance of the provisions of section 50 of the Act and as such, the learned Judge was not justified in disbelieving the same and holding the same to be an after-thought. It was further pointed out that on all other counts, the learned Judge has held in favour of the prosecution. It was submitted that when the prosecution has proved all the other necessary factors, and has also proved due compliance of the provisions of section 50 of the NDPS Act through the depositions of the police witnesses, the learned Judge ought not to have held that the prosecution has not established the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them. It was, accordingly, urged that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgement of acquittal is required to be reversed and the accused are required to be convicted for the offence under section 20(b) of the Act as well as the offence under section 66(i)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.