SURJUSING GANPATSING Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order rendered by the Ld. Joint District Judge and Special Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Morbi, on 23/7/2004 in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2003 [ndps], whereby the present appellant who was original accused in said case came to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 20 (B) (2)[c] of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [ndps Act] and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment [ri] for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default RI for one year.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 11/3/2003 PSI Mr. Pravinsinh J. Jadeja was available in Wankaner Taluka Police Station round about 9. 00 am and at 12. 00 in the noon he received secret information to the effect that the present appellant [surajsing Ganpatsing Adivasi, resident of Bihar] is in possession of contraband substance Ganja and would be found near Wankaner boundary on Rajkot Ahmedabad National Highway. The said information was reduced into writing by him and the same was forwarded to Dy. S. P. Morbi Division. Thereafter two panchas were called and panchas were apprised of the fact regarding the secret information. Preliminary panchnama was drawn in the police station and thereafter, PSI Pravinsinh Jadeja and other police personnel along with two panchas proceeded to the place of information. When they reached near Wankaner boundary, they found the appellant having a jute bag kept besides him. The appellant was apprised about the information received by PSI Jadeja and all the members of raiding party including the panchas were introduced to him. He was apprised of the fact that he would be put to search and if he desires, his search to be conducted in presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. He has a right to say so, to which he replied that he has no objection if the search is to be conducted by PSI Jadeja. It is the case of the prosecution that when the jute bag was searched, 11 polythene bags were found and on opening of these 11 bags, Ganja was found. The weighment of Ganja was made by PW 3 Rameshbhai Ramjibhai and total weight of contraband was 20 Kgs and 500 Grams. Samples from each bag containing Ganja were collected and same were packed and sealed. Seizure pancnama was drawn at the place of the incident. Along with the appellant, all the members of the raiding party including PSI Jadeja came to Wankaner Taluka Police Station. PSI Jadeja lodged the FIR regarding the offence against the appellant, which came to be registered. PSI Ravjibhai Mangabhai PW 11 conducted the investigation. During the course of investigation, statements of material witnesses were recorded. Muddamal samples were forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory [fsl] for necessary examination. After receipt of FSL report, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wankaner. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Special Court [sessions Court], Ld. Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Morbi, which was numbered as Sessions Case [ndps] No. 19 of 2003.

(3.) LD. Trial Judge framed charge against the accused at exh. 1, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. The prosecution examined in-all 11 witnesses and produced required documentary evidence. After the prosecution concluded its oral evidence, Ld. Trial Judge recorded further statement of the appellant under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant in his further statement denied generally all the incriminating circumstances put to him by the trial Court and stated that he was innocent 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, the Ld. Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the appellant and ultimately recorded his conviction for the offence punishable under section 20 (B)[2] [c] of the NDPS Act and awarded the sentence as hereinbefore referred to in this judgment.