ANTONY SAURI PILLAY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this case stands convicted for an offence punishable under section 20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The learned Joint District and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane has awarded him a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant is in jail.

(2.) KUMARI Deshmukh has been appointed Counsel by the State to appear on his behalf. According to the Prosecution, P. S. I. Jagannath Salunkhe (P. W. 3) received some information that the accused was dealing in Ganja and pursuant to this information, he and members of the raiding party went to the hut of the accused, which is in a Zopadpatti opposite an S. T. bus stand at Vithalwadi. They called out to the accused, who is alleged to have emerged from the hut, and they offered search of themselves which he declined. Thereafter the hut was searched and it is alleged that a gunny bag was found under a cot, on examination of which four kilograms of Ganja were detected. A panchanama was drawn after the contraband was weighed in an adjoining grocery shop. The accused was placed under arrest, subsequently charge-sheeted and put on trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him as mentioned above. It is against this conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) KUMARI Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused, has drawn my attention to the oral and documentary evidence on record, all of which is extremely scanty. Her first contention, and to my mind one which is liable to be upheld, is that even assuming the entire prosecution story were to be accepted, the liability in respect of the contraband that was seized cannot be fastened to the accused because there is no evidence to establish any such nexus. She further submits that there are serious infirmities which would cast some degree of doubt on the question whether at all the gunny bag was recovered from the hut. The Pancha admits in his evidence that he did not enter the hut at any time and this appears to be the position vis-a-vis the P. S. I. , Jagannath Salunkhe (P. W. 3 ). There is a suggestion putforth by the defence that the gunny bag was in the possession of two other persons who ran away on seeing the Police Party and it was this bag that was subsequently recovered. Even accepting the Prosecution case at its best, the position that emerges is that no evidence was brought forward before the Court in order to indicate that the premises from where the gunny bag was allegedly recovered belonged to the accused, that he was in possession of those premises, that the contraband had been brought there, that he was dealing in it, that he had handled it or that he was in any manner concerned with it. To my mind, the contention raised by Kumari Deshmukh is indefensible and is liable to be accepted.