ZAKIRHUSSAIN SHAKURBHAI SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Zakirhussain Shakurbhai Shaikh, who was original accused in NDPS Case No.1 of 2005 came to be convicted by Additional Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court No.3, Gandhinagar on 19-10-2006 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 21 r/w Section 8(c) and Section 29 r/w Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1981 ('the NDPS Act', for short) and was sentenced to undergo R.I for ten years and fine .of Rs.l lac and in default of payment of fine imprisonment for one year for the offences punishable under Section 21 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act. He was acquitted from the charges of the offences punishable under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

(2.) The prosecution case in nutshell is that PI, Prohibition Department. Ahmedabad Mr.K.S.Vaghela was in his office at 10.30 am on 2.8.2005 and he received a secret information thai the present appellant accused Zakirhussain Shakurbhai Shaikh is to pass at Naroda to Mota Chiloda Road and he would be carrying Brown Sugar in one cotton bag to be delivered to someone else and he would be found near ST bus stand opposite to Pancheswar Mahadev Temple. The informant also provided the description of the appellant i.e. his age and native place. PI Mr.Vaghela reduced the information into writing and forwarded to his immediate superior, Dy. S.P. Mr.K.C.Chudasama. After receipt of the information by Dy. S.P. Mr. Chudasama. Mr. Chudasama thought it fit to conduct the raid involving himself in the raid along with PI Mr.Vaghela. Two Panchas, namely. Gulammohamed Abdul Hamid Shaikh and Jagdishbhai Kalidas Leuva were called. Panchas were apprised about the secret information and preliminary panchnama was drawn. Thereafter, in two different vehicles Dy. S.P. Mr.Chudasama, PI Mr. Vaghela, two Panchas and other members of the raiding party left the police station to go to the place of information. After reaching to the place of information, a surveillance was arranged. At about 1 pm. the appellant carrying a cotton bag in his hand came near the ST bus stand. The members of the raiding party, including Dy. S.P. Mr.Chudasama and PI Mr.Vaghela along with Panchas went near the appellant. Upon inquiry, appellant introduced himself as Zakirhussain Shakurbhai Shaikh and the Officer of the raiding party informed him that the appellant was required to be searched. The appellant was also informed that if the appellant wanted the search to be carried out in presence of any other Gazetted Officer other than the Dy S.P. Mr. Chudasama or before any Magistrate he can opt for the same to which the appellant stated that he had no objection if the search was to be conducted by the Officers of the raiding party. When the cotton bag held by the appellant was searched one polythene bag was found. When said polythene bag was opened, one another polythene bag was found and when that second bag was opened it contained contraband substance described as Brown Sugar. Along with the polythene bag, the substance weighed 354 gms. and the net weight of the substance came to be 352 gms. Two samples were prepared, each containing 5 gms. of those contraband substances, which were marked as Al and A2. Al was original sample and A2 was duplicate. The remaining contraband substance was packed and sealed and was marked as A. The samples were packed and sealed, panchas slips containing signatures of the Panchas and Dy.S.P. Mr.Chudasama were pasted on the packets and seal was affixed on the packets. Final part of the panchnama was drawn on the spot, necessary papers like Ravangi Nondh etc. were prepared on the spot. Thereafter, the Officers of the raiding party along with accused and muddamal came to Prohibition police station. Dy.S.P. Mr.Chudasama lodged the FIR against the appellant and offence was investigated, statements of material witnesses were recorded, FSL reports were kept with the investigation papers. After collecting required material for the purpose of lodgment of charge-sheet, charge-sheet came to be filed, which came to be registered as NDPS Case No.1 of 2005.

(3.) The trial Judge framed charge at Exh.4, to which the appellant did not plead guilty. Thereupon the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. The prosecution examined the witnesses and produced required documentary evidence. After the prosecution concluded its evidence, the learned trial Judge recorded further statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the appellant in his further statement denied generally all the incriminating circumstances put to him by the trial Court and stated that he was serving in Memco Johnson & Johnson Company and he was passing near the place for the purpose of taking tea and he was apprehended by police and he was falsely implicated in this case. After appreciating the evidence on record and considering the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt, and ultimately recorded the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 21 r/w Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act and awarded the sentence as hereinabove referred to in this judgment.