THAKUR NARAYANSINGH SHRI JALARAM Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants original accused Nos. 1 and 2 have filed these appeals under sec. 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code" for short) against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 30/7/2004 passed by the learned Special 2nd Fast Track Court, Patan in Special [ndps] Case No. 3 of 2003 convicting the appellants original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under secs. 8 (C), 20 (B), 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the NDPS Act" for short) and sentencing them to suffer R. I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1 Lac and in default of payment of fine, further R. I. for one year for each of the offences with a further direction that all substantial sentences shall run concurrently. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as disclosed from the complaint as well as unfolded during trial, is as under :-

(2.) MR. N. D. Jetavat, Police Inspector, Sidhdhhpur Police Station lodged a complaint that on 16/1/2003 at 00. 15 hours in the midnight, he along with the Head Constable Manubhai Somabhai and Police Constables named Bhratsinh Surendrasinh, Lakshmansinh Pratapsinh, Hardiksinh Madhavsinh etc. were on night checkking in Sidhdhpur town in the Government vehicle and while on petrolling, they went to near Kakoshi Cross Roads on Highway and when they reached opposite Sunrise Hotel, they met Head Constable Muradkha Jivankha, Unarmed Police Constable Mulubha Govindsinh and other two Home-guard personnels and instruction was given them to properly check and at that time, when he was instructing them, two persons came from Kakoshi Cross Roads and they had covered their faces with Shawl and their presence was found to be suspicious when they started walking with speed and when they did not give proper reply, a search was made on the said persons and the complainant and other introduced themselves to the said persons and the police constables Lakshmansinh called two panchas named Baldevji Sartanji Rajput and Chandansinh Madarsinh Rajput and they readily agreed to be the panchas and in their presence, the names of the aforesaid persons were asked in Hindi and one person has given his name as Harjindarsing Savindarsing and another has given his name as Narayansinh Srijaleram and in presence of the panchas, shawl was removed and the bag carried by the original accused No. 1 was searched which resulted into find of much quantity of charas i. e. 3. 250 Kgs. Charas was found worth Rs. 48,750 and when the complainant asked any pass or permit, those persons were not having any pass or permit. It is to be noted that before that, those persons were asked whether they want to be searched in presence of any Gazetted Officer, both the persons refused and thereafter search was carried out, and thereafter the search of the offending substance was seized. A sample was drawn which was sealed as required by law in presence of Panchas and the sealed sample was sent to FSL for analysis. Before that, after drawing Panchnama, the complainant gave complaint at Sidhdhpur Police Station being CR No. I-3 of 2003 against the aforesaid two persons for the offences punishable under secs. 8 (C), 20 (B), 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Thereafter, further investigation was carried out by P. S. I. Mr. Nagori. Statements of witnesses came to be recorded and as stated above, sample was sent to the FSL. The report of the analysis indicated that the substance analysed was Charas within the meaning of NDPS Act and thereafter as the investigating officer found that the accused have committed offence punishable under secs. 8 (C), 20 (B), 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, he filed chargesheet before the learned Special Judge and Sessions Judge, Patan which was numbered as Special [ndps] Case No. 3 of 2003. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the court of learned Special Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Patan. Charge came to be framed against both the accused persons at Ex. 9. Both the accused did not plead guilty and their statements were recorded at Ex. Nos. 10 and 11. As both the accused did not plead guilty and denied having committed any offence as alleged, they were put to trial. In order to prove the case against the appellants, the prosecution has examined in all 9 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence inclusive of the Panchnama of place of offence, Panchnama of search and seizure, FSL Report etc. After recording evidence of the prosecution was over, the learned trial court explained the accused the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution and recorded their further statement u/sec. 313 of the Code. In their further statement, the accused have denied the case of the prosecution by reiterating that they have been falsely implicated.

(3.) ON appreciation, evaluation, analysis and close scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial court has held that contraband article Charas was recovered from the possession of the original accused No. 1 and the original accused No. 2 has abetted him in commission of the offence and that the prosecution has been able to establish that the complicity of accused for commission of the offences with which they were charged, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, he recorded the order of conviction and sentence against them to which reference is made in earlier paragraph of this judgment, giving rise to the instant two appeals at the behest of the original accused Nos. 1 to 2.