ABDUL SATTAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of convic­tion and sentence recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Panaji in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1986. Appellant had been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for being in possession of 1 kg. of charas and under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for being in possession of 30 gms. of morphine and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years on each count and at the same time to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each on both counts and in default of payment of fine to undergo further 2 years of R. I. under each fine. However, the substantive sentences were made to run concurrently.

(2.) SHORTLY stated the prosecution case against the appellant is that a raid was conducted on the appellant's house, which was headed by Dilipkumar (P. W. 2), who is Additional Superintendent of Police, on an information that the appellant was trafficking in drugs at about 8 a.m. on 5th March, 1986. There were two panchas accompanying the raiding party, namely, Manohar Sakalkar (P. W. 1) and Ramdan Shrinivas Kahar. In the course of the raid on the premises under the possession of the appellant 1 kg. of charas was recovered underneath a mattress placed on a cot in the second room. Another recovery was made of a substance ordinarily called brown sugar in a polythene packet removed from a pocket of a jacket which was lying on the peg. It was also the prosecution case that a balance was recovered during the raid from underneath the cot. On seizure of the materials a panchanama was duly made. Two different samples were drawn which were separately sealed and taken possession of for transmission for analysis by the public analyst. For that matter Maria Caldeira (P. W. 4), who has been examined as a public analyst has determined the substances to be one of charas and the other of morphine.

(3.) AS mentioned earlier against the order of conviction dated 4th 11th November, 1987 the appellant came in appeal before this Court. The matter came up before the Division Bench consisfing of one of us (Kamat, J.) and by the order dated 15th June, 1988 that appeal of the appellant was dismissed with the result the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant were confirmed. However, a minor modification was made to the order of sentence in that instead of 2 years R. I., in default sentence was commuted to six months. The" appellant did not rest there and went in appeal before the Supreme Court vide Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1992 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 1696/90). This criminal appeal was disposed of by a Bench consisting of three learned Judges on 22nd January, 1992 whereby the appeal of the appellant was partly allowed, the judgment and order of the High Court dated 15th June, 1988 was quashed and set aside and in the light of the directions and observations made therein, this Court was directed to hear the appeal afresh after recalling Manohar Sakalkar (P. W. 1) for the purpose of cross-examination by the appellant and, if necessary, to examine as Court witnesses the concerned Police Officers who had correspondence with the Advocate of the appellant on the assignment of duty to the panch witness as a home guard on the relevant date and suggesting that Manohar Sakalkar (P. W. 1) was on the active roll of home guards during that period.