RAJKUMAR HARIRAM GAMETI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 21/6/2003 rendered by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Fact Track Court, Modasa [for short 'ld. Trial Judge'] in NDPS Case No. 2/2000. The Ld. Trial Judge was pleased to record conviction of the appellant - accused for the commission of offences punishable under section 8[c], 21[c] read with section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act [for short 'ndps Act'] and the appellant accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment [ri] for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1 lac with usual default stipulation. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, the original accused preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in nut shell, is as under :-2. 1. Mr. D N Oza, Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Ahmedabad, received an information on August 31, 1998 that a person named Kantiji Fulaji Rangot was to come in the evening of September 1, 1998 near Meghraj Bus Stand with brown sugar. Upon receipt of such information, Mr. Oza reduced the same into writing and forwarded to his superior officer. Thereafter, members of the raiding party including Mr. Oza went to Meghraj, panch witnesses were called and they were informed about the secret information received by Mr. Oza. Thereafter, members of the raiding party together with panch witnesses proceeded towards Meghraj Bus Stand. Co-accused Kantiji Fulaji was spotted coming towards Meghraj Bus Stand in suspicious circumstances. He was intercepted by the members of the raiding party. Mr. Oza conveyed to him the information received by him and was informed the co-accused Kantiji that it was necessary to search his person and that Gazetted Officer was also present and if the co-accused Kantiji so desired, he could be searched in presence of a Magistrate or other Gazetted Officer. The said offer was declined by him. Thereafter, the person of the co-accused Kantiji was searched and brown sugar was found from pocket of shirt put on by Kantiji. One goldsmith Mr. Soni weighed the substance and its weight was ascertained to be 621 grams. Confessional statement of co-accused Kantiji was recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act. The statement revealed that co-accused Kantiji Fulaji in the company of appellant - accused Rajkumar Hariram Gameti, Rakeshkumar Shankarlal Kalal, Shrilal Vasudev Nair and Kantilal Punamchand Kalal had come on scooter to Meghraj market and before reaching the market, the appellant - accused Rajkumar Harilal had handed over said packet containing the brown sugar to him, which he had kept in pocket of his shirt and he was instructed by the appellant accused to handover the said packet to Rajubhai of Ahmedabad, but before he could effect the delivery, he was arrested near the bus stand. At that time, the Narcotic Control Bureau issued summons to the remaining 4 co-accused persons including the appellant - accused, but the summons could not be served. Therefore, initially Mr. J M Trivedi, Intelligence Officer of the Narcotic Control Bureau, Ahmedabad, lodged complaint against the co-accused Kantiji Fulaji in the Court of the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Himatnagar, which was numbered and registered as NDPS Case No. 7/1998. Subsequently, the summons could be served upon the present appellant - accused Rajkumar Harilal and he was arrested in connection with this offence on 26/7/2000. Ms. Krishna Chobey, Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Ahmedabad lodged complaint against the appellant - accused in the Court of the Ld. Sessions Judge, Himatnagar, which was numbered and registered as NDPS Case No. 2/2000. In connection with this offence, he was charge-sheeted and the Ld. Trial Judge framed charge against the appellant -accused for the commission of the aforesaid offences at exh. 9. The appellant - accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) THE prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. After the conclusion of the evidence, the Ld. Trial Judge recorded further statements of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the accused generally denied all the allegations levelled against him and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case. The Ld. Trial Judge evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record adduced by the prosecution and considering the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, delivered the impugned judgment and he was pleased to convict the appellant - accused for the offences charged against him and was sentenced as described hereinabove.