STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MOHAMAD ASLAM ABDUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellant­State has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.20, Ahmedabad dated 01.03.1994 rendered in Sessions Case No.233 of 1992, whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the original accused­ opponents herein of the charges for the alleged offences.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are that a complaint was lodged by the complainant with Shaherkotda Police Station, wherein on information that accused no.2 -Mohamadkamil Mohanmadhusain Pinjara was keeping charas balls weighing 670 grams at Saraspur Potaliya Cross Road and doing his business of the same without pass or permit, the Police Inspector -Mr.G.J. Chowdhary along with his staff and panchas went to the aforesaid place and on reading the said place, they found charas balls weighing 670 grams worth Rs.40,000/ -. It is further case of the prosecution that after he weighed the said balls keeping the said balls as they were in the respective plastic packets containing the said chargas balls were placed in the said bag and thereafter, that bag containing the said charas balls in the plastic packets was placed in an iron tin and a slip containing signatures of panchas and P.I. Mr.G.J. Chaudhary was put inside the tin, and thereafter, that tin was covered by threads and upon this thread, it was sealed by means of sealing wax and upon that seal, the seal of Inspector of Police was affixed and charas balls were seized after completing the detailed panchnama. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged.

(3.) AFTER completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the learned Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") committed the said case to the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.20, Ahmedabad which was, thereafter, numbered as Sessions Case No.233/1992. Since the opponents - accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, they were tried for the alleged offences.