RAJU BHAVLAL PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) It is alleged in the FIR that information was received in the police station that three persons were carrying Ganja on Pulsar motorcycle of Bajaj company for sale. Police Inspector immediately called up on the cell phone of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer and communicated him about the information received. FIR also states that the information was recorded in the station diary. Thereafter, the raiding party was formed and it raided the spot of the incident. It is alleged in the FIR that the raiding party started checking the vehicles. The raiding party noticed two black colour Pulsar motorcycles of Bajaj company as mentioned in the information. On one motorcycle two persons were riding and they were carrying two plastic gunny bags and on the other motorcycle one plastic gunny bag was tied. On asking their names they told it as Raju Pawar, Manoj Pawar and Dinesh Mohite. Ganja of 75.100 kilograms was found in those gunny bags worth Rs.13,25,000.00. After taking samples, FIR was lodged on the basis of which offence punishable under Sec. 8, 20 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short the NDPS Act) came to be registered.

(3.) Heard Shri Bhosale h/f. Shri Sonar learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Bhosale submits that there is total non-compliance of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act. He submits that FIR shows that no information was recorded as required by Sec. 42(1) of the NDPS Act. He further submits that taking entry in station diary entry is no compliance of Sec. 42(1). There is no compliance of Sec. 42(2) of the NDPS Act either. He submits that total non-compliance of Sec. 42(1) and (2) is impermissible. For this purpose he placed reliance on the case of Karnail Singh V/s. State if Haryana; (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 539 (Constitution Bench Judgment). He submits that CA report is not filed. Therefore, charge-sheet is incomplete.