CHANDRAKANT NAGINDAS MODI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Chandrakant Nagindas Modi is convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 67 of 1987 for the offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further three years.

(2.) The prosecution case was that Police Inspector Shri V. L. Desai of P.C.B. got information and, therefore, called two panch-witnesses at his office at multi-storeyed Building, Surat, and alongwith the panch-witnesses and the police party went to Nanpura, Surat, and kept a watch. At about 10.15 a.m. the appellant came and got down from the rickshaw nearby Nanpura, Police Chowky, and while he was proceeding towards Popat Moholla he was stopped. He was carrying one small purse, which on search in presence of panch-witnesses was found to contain 10 pellets of charas in plastic cover. All the 10 pellets were seized and kept in a separate cover which was sealed with sealing wax, and a slip bearing the signatures of the panchas was placed on it. Thereafter the panchnama was prepared at that very place. Police Sub-Inspector, Shri N.L. Badkas then filed the First Information Report, and Head Constable, S G. Yadav carried out the investigation.

(3.) According to the prosecution, the muddamal 10 pellets of charas were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. They were found to weigh 10 grams. On analysis, the Chemical Analyser found them to be cannabis cative (hem), i.e. Charas. As the quantity of Charas was 10 grams, charge-sheet was submitted for the offences punishable under section 20(b)(ii) of the Act and section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The learned trial Judge framed the charge for the above said offences and also for the offence punishable under section 65(e), Bombay Prohibition Act, and on trial convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.