ANVARKHAN A PATHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which has surfaced in this appeal for our consideration is, as to whether the conviction of the appellant and sentence for the offence punishable under Sec. 20(b)(ii) read with Sec. 31 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (N.D.P.S. Act), by virtue of the impugned judgment and order dated 24-11-1992, recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch at Bhuj, in Sessions Case No. 46 of 1988 is vulnerable, in view of the provisions of Sec. 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act ?

(2.) The prosecution case has been that, the appellant original accused, on being carried out raid on 16-9-1986 at about 11-30 a.m., in the Office of the Mamlatdar, situated in the city of Bhuj, was found possessed of contraband article like Charas, weighing about 10 gms. The raid was effected by a raiding party headed by P.S.I. Mr. R.S. Sharma, upon prior information that the accused who had gone to attend the Office of the Mamlatdar, at Bhuj, on 16-9-1986, was in possession of contraband article Charas. When P.S.I. Mr. Sharma of Bhuj city police station, upon such prior information, in presence of panchas, searched the person of the accused when he was in the Office of the Mamlatdar, at Bhuj, and was found to be in possession of 10 gms. of Charas, which had been recovered from the right side pocket of the pant of the accused. There were about seven polythene bags in which the Charas in the form of tablets was seized and the accused was found to be in illegal possession of the same as he was not having any permit. After drawing the necessary panchnama of the seizure and arrest, the sample of muddamal contraband article was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) and it was reported that the said article was prohibited Charas. Therefore, the accused was sent for trial before the Sessions Court, Kutch, at Bhuj, against whom a charge was framed on 2-11-1992 for the offence punishable under Sec. 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act for the illegal possession of the contraband article Charas. to which he denied and claimed to be tried.

(3.) The prosecution relied on the evidence of the following six prosecution witnesses :