MAINUDDIN KASIM MULLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this case was convicted on 6th July, 1988 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1986 of offences punishable under sections 20 (b) and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and was sentenced cumulatively to suffer R. I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to suffer further R. I. for one year. Having felt aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded to him, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution story, P. W. 1 P. S. I. Abhyankar, of the prohibition and excise department, who was working at Sangli in the year 1985, had received on 13th February, 1986 at about 10. 30 a. m. an information at Miraj that some people were dealing in narcotic drugs in Mali Galli at Miraj. He was accompanied by one P. S. I. , Miraj and also one Inspector, whose name he has not disclosed, at that time. Panchas were then called and the raiding party had travelled in a police jeep upto the Darga known as Miraj Marga. The jeep was parked there and the raiding party had proceeded towards a lane called Mali Lane. It is alleged that the appellant was noticed standing on a public street and further, that one seeing the party arriving, he had appeared confused. On suspicion, therefore, a personal search of the said person was taken in the presence of panchas. One packet containing about 250 grams of Heroin and the other packet containing Madat (Opium) were found on his person in the pockets of his trouser and shirt respectively. Samples weighing 5 grams each were collected on the spot out of the seized articles and the original packets as well as the sample packets were allegedly sealed under a wax seal and the labels signed by the panchas. P. S. I. Abhyankar had then, lodged his complaint at his own office. He had produced along with the complaint the panchanama Exhibit 10, which was drawn on the scene of offence for seizing the articles. The appellant was taken in custody and was produced before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Miraj, at about 8. 30 p. m. , who had remanded him to the magisterial custody. Finally, the appellant was released on bail on 15th February, 1986. The samples, which were collected on the scene of offence itself, were then sent to chemical analyser on 10th March, 1986 with a letter, Exhibit 12 of even date, with P. W. 3 constable Chand. In course of time, the reports of the chemical analyser (Exhibits 15 and 16) were received reporting that one of the sample articles contained Heroin and the other contained Opium. The investigations were conducted by P. W. 4 Inspector Jadhav, but the charge-sheet was submitted finally on 15th January 1987 by Inspector Bhosale.

(3.) THE case came up before the learned Sessions Judge on 19th may, 1988 for framing of the charge, and charge vide Exhibit 1 was framed against the appellant for offences punishable under section 8 (c) read with sections 20 (b) and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellant pleaded not guilty and a defence of total denial. He had applied on 16th June, 1986, vide Exhibit 6, even before the commencement of the trial, that the Court should call for certain record from High Court Appeal No. 777 of 1987 in which the appellant was an accused. In particular, he had called for the documents such as panchanama and F. I. R. drawn by the officials for the purposes of that case. The said application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter, again on 18th June, 1988, the appellant had applied, vide Exhibit 13, to the Sessions Court for permission to place on record certified copies of a panchanama and a F. I. R. which he wanted to call for, and had applied for calling one Shri Yadav, Superintendent of Central Excise, Kolhapur, as a defence witness. No orders on the application were passed till the prosecution evidence was concluded on 24th June 1988. Thereafter, the said application was rejected and the certified copies produced by the appellant were taken on record at Exhibits 20 and 21. The contention of the appellant before the trial Court was that the officers of the central excise and customs department as well as those of the States prohibition and excise department had falsely implicated him in two different cases for offences allegedly committed on 13th February, 1986 and that the evidence in both the cases was not quite consistent with each other. He had submitted that both the cases were false and that, therefore, he was entitled to an acquittal.