UDAY KUMAR ABHEVARDHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against appellant's conviction for the offence punishable under Section 20(1)(c) read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for one year imposed upon the appellant by the learned Special Judge, NDPS cases in Greater Mumbai.

(2.) Facts which are material for deciding this Appeal are as under :-

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the NCB. With the help of both the learned Counsel I have gone through the entire record. PW-1 Namboodri is the officer, who gathered intelligence, prepared intelligence note, arranged for and participated in the raid. PW-2 Vijay Govindram Bhatia is another intelligence officer, who had been entrusted with the task of carrying out raid by his superiors. He seized the incriminating articles, performed panchanama, drew samples and sent the samples to the laboratories. PW-3 Mrs. Pamela Salino D'Souza is the land lady from whom the premises were taken on leave and license basis by the appellant. PW-4 Pradeep Kumar Bhatnagar was working as Assistant Chemical Analyzer in the New Customs House Laboratory, who received the samples and analyzed it. He has proved his report whereby he found that the sample was heroin i. e. Diacetyl Morphine. PW-5 Sanjay Gokhale was also working as Intelligence Officer and had participated in the raid. He had recorded statement of PW-6 Rachita Morje, who was estate agent through whom the appellant had allgedly taken the flat on rent. PW-6 Mrs.Rachita Ramakant Morje is the estate agent, who claimed that the land lady was her friend. She stated that she had shown the premises to the appellant, who came to her for the first time on 1st March, 2003 and that the Agreement was prepared on 1st March, 2003. She was permitted to be cross examined by the prosecution and then stated on 15th November, 2002 she had shown the premises to the appellant and that the Agreement was made in her presence. She admitted that she wrongly stated that the accused visited the site on 1st March, 2003 and that the Agreement was signed on 1st March, 2003 which was in fact the date on which she was called out to the Narcotics Control Bureau. But again in cross examination the witness stated that the land lady told her four days prior to 1st March, 2003 that she wanted to give premises on rent and that for these four days, the key of the premises was with her. She admitted having signed the Agreement as Usha Morje and not Rachita Morje. In re-examination the witness re-iterated that she had received the key of the flat four days prior to 1st March, 2003.