RAMESH SHANTARAM CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred the present appeal impugning the judgment and order dated 6/05/1987 passed by the additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 426 of 1986. By the said judgment and order the appellant was convicted under section 20 of the NDPS act, 1985 and sentenced to R. I. for ten years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh in default R. I. for six months.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on 9/11/1986, P. W. 1 P. S. I. Kadam received an information that one Ramesh Chavan (appellant) resident of dattawadi colony which is under the Swargate Police Station, possesses and sells charas in his house No. 424 of Dattawadi. P. S. I. Kadam immediately summoned the panchas and proceeded towards the spot of offence. The raiding party noticed that in the open court yard of house, four persons were sitting together. They apprehended the persons. The appellant came to be searched and on the personal search of the appellant, in his hand, one plastic packet containing 55 'charas' pellets were found. Thereafter, the appellant came to be arrested. The case came to be registered. After due investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed and in due course, the charge came to be framed against the present appellant under section 20 of NDPS Act and under section 20 read with section 29 of NDPS Act. As stated above, the appellant came to be convicted by the learned Sessions Judge and hence, the present appeal.

(3.) THE learned advocate for the appellant has mainly raised two submissions i. e. the provisions under section 50 of the NDPS Act, have not been com-plied with. He has contended that under section 50, it is mandatory that the accused person should be informed before his search is taken about his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. In the present case before the personal search of the appellant was taken, he was not apprised of his right to be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Thus it was submitted that in the present case, before the personal search of the appellant was taken, he was not apprised of his right under section 50 and thus, conviction of the appellant is vitiated on this count.