BASHIR SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Margao on 7th February, 1990 in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1988, convicting the accused-appellant for an offence punishable under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "nd and PS Act of 1985" for the sake of brevity), and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- or in default to further rigorous imprisonment for one year, has been challenged in this appeal.

(2.) THE accused-appellant came to be charge-sheeted before the Sessions Court for the offence of having in his possession about 35 grams of brown sugar. The prosecution sprang from the following facts. On 17th January, 1988, the PSI received an information that the accused was dealing in brown sugar. He, therefore, called two panchas and along with the party proceeded to the house of the accused at about 6. 30 A. M. The party reached the house of the accused. The outer door was knocked. The accused opened the door. The PSI disclosed the purpose of the raid and asked the accused to take the search of the raiding party if he wanted. The raiding party including the panchas then went inside the room. They took the search. During the course of the search seven packets were found below the pillow. When the packets were opened, it was found that they contained brown sugar. The articles were seized under the panchanama drawn on the spot. The controband, so seized, came to be sealed under the paper seals bearing the signatures of the panchas. The panchanama was drawn there. The party then returned back to the police station. The accused came to be arrested in the evening at about 7 p. m. The packets seized and sealed at the spot were sent to the Chemical Analyser for his analysis. The Chemical Analyser on examination came to the conclusion that the contents of the packets contained 23. 8 percent w/w of morphine. On receipt of the report, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused.

(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margao framed a charge under section 21 of the N. D. and P. S. Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. His defence is purely of denial. On his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he stated that nothing was recovered from him and he has been falsely implicated.