MANSUKHBHAI LAVJIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against judgment dated April 30, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in N.D.P.S.Case No.104 of 2000 whereby the appellant is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Sthe NDPS Act] and sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of ten years and a fine of Rs.1 Lac, in default, R.I. of one year.

(2.) An information was received by A.S.I. Mr.Keshubhai Mepabhai discharging duties in D.C.B.Rajkot on 7.4.2000 at 16.30 hours that one person named Mansukhbhai Lavjibhai, wearing white pant and black and red coloured shirt, was in possession of charas, and selling the same near Ranchhoddasji Ashram located on Kuvadva road, Rajkot. The A.S.I. Conveyed the information received by him to Mr.B.V.Jani, who then was P.S.I. Of D.C.B. Rajkot. Mr.Jani, accordingly informed Police Control Room and Deputy Commissioner of Police. Further, the A.S.I. Also informed Mr.Baranda, who was P.I., DCB, Rajkot and after requisitioning services of panch witnesses, prepared the first part of panchnama. On the strength of the information received, a raid was carried out on Kuvadva road on 7.4.2000 and when the appellant was accosted, he was found in possession of charas weight of which was found to be 216 grams worth Rs.6480/- approximately. The raiding party went to the place indicated in the information. On reaching place situated on Kuvadva Road and on confronting the appellant, name of the appellant was asked and subsequently he was informed that as he was, as per the information, in possession of contraband article, search was required to be carried out of his person. He was also informed that he could be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate if so desired. However, the appellant did not express desire to be so searched. Thereafter search of the person of the appellant was carried out and on the search being carried out of his person, one small plastic bag was recovered from left hand side pocket of his pant containing dark-brown material. On smelling, the substance found from the possession of the appellant was ascertained to be charas. An arrangement was also made to call a Goldsmith to weigh the muddamal which was recovered from the possession of the appellant, and after weighing the muddamal article, its weight was found to be 216 grams. It was subsequently placed in a plastic bag and the plastic bag was sealed in the presence of panch witnesses. The signatures of panch witnesses were also obtained on the slip which was placed with the plastic bag. On the search of person of the appellant, xerox copy of railway-receipt and one certificate issued by Rajkot Hospital were also recovered and the same were also seized. Tricycle, on which the appellant was traveling, was seized during the course of raid. The seizure- memo was prepared and thereafter the appellant was detained. The grounds of detention were supplied to the appellant and the thumb impression of the appellant was taken thereon. Thereafter the complaint was lodged by Mr.B.V.Jani, Police Sub Inspector. The sample of muddamal article, which was recovered during the course of raid, was placed in a separate plastic bag and it was sealed for sending the same to Forensic Science Laboratory ['F.S.L.' for short] for the purpose of detailed analysis. The investigating officer recorded statements of witnesses during the course of investigation. On receipt of report from F.S.L. and on completion of investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 22 of the NDPS Act in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot. The case was thereupon numbered as Sessions Case No.104 of 2000.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot framed charge against the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. It was read over and explained to him. the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and claimed to be tried.. The matter was subsequently set down for full- fledged trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot. On behalf of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined in order to prove the charge. Documentary evidence, such as the complaint vide Exh.9, the notings made in the station-diary vide Exh.10, yadi with regard to raid vide Exh.11, information which was received vide Exh.12, yadi with regard to search vide Exh.13, seizure-memo vide Exh.14, yadi with regard to receipt of muddamal and detention of the appellant, yadi which was sent to higher officer vide Exh.18, panchnama vide Exh.35, seizure of muddamal and the slip wherein signatures of panch witnesses were obtained vide Exhs.36 & 37, muddamal receipt vide Exh.41, yadi which was sent to F.S.L. vide Exh.46, report of F.S.L. vide Exhs. 50, 52, 56 was also produced to prove the charge against the appellant-original accused.