SHAHEJAD RASHIDBHAI ANSARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal filed under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) is to the correctness of the judgment and order dated 11.7.2003 rendered in Sessions Case No.255 of 2002 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad City, by which the appellant ('accused' for short) has been convicted for commission of the offences punishable under Section 8 ( c) read with Section 20 (b) (ii) and under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short) and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs.50,000/- i.d., R.I. for 1 months for commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the NDPS Act and also R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs.50,000/- i.d., R.I. for 1 months for commission of the offense punishable under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. It has been also ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) Since the facts of the case have been detailed in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad City, it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again in verbatim and in detail in this judgment. However, the basic facts which are necessary to be discussed in this appeal are as under:

(3.) Mr. S.R. Divetia, learned advocate of the accused, has submitted that he does not challenge the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the trial court so far as conviction of the accused for commission of the offences punishable under section 8 (c ) read with section 20 (b) (ii) of the NDPS Act is concerned. However, according to him, so far as conviction recorded under section 22 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is bad in law as it is not warranted. As per the prosecution case the accused was found with charas which is not a psychotropic substance. Section 22 provides for punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances. Therefore, conviction recorded under section 22 of the NDPS Act against the accused deserves to be quashed and set aside.