SHIVA DHANESH YADAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge for mumbai in NDPS Special Case No. 316 of 1997 wherein the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under the provisions of section 21 read with section 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short referred to as NDPS Act ). The appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default to undergo further SI for four months.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28-3-1997 at 6. 00 p. m. Natu was present in Andheri area and at that time he received the information from his informant that the appellant was to come near Natraj Studio for giving narcotic drug to some other persons. He went to Andheri Police Station and gave that information to PI Chavan Incharge of that police station who asked API Sawant to write it in information register. Accordingly, the said information was written in information register. The copy of the said information was sent to their superiors and thereafter panch witnesses were called, and all of them proceeded to Natraj Studio area for effecting the raid. The appellant came there, he was apprehended. When he was informed about his right as indicated by section 50 of the NDPS Act and was asked whether he wished to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He declined the said offer and preferred to be searched by the members of the raiding party. The search was taken. Heroin was found in polythene bag which was weighed and it weighed 500 gms. Sample packets were prepared for chemical examination and the said powder was seized under a panchanama in presence of the panch witnesses which was signed by the panch witnesses. The said sample packets were deposited in Andheri Police Station and, thereafter, constable Gaikwad took it to chemical analyser. The FSL chemical analyzer reported that it was heroin (Diacetyl morphine), the narcotic and psycho-tropic substance. The investigation resulted in trial which ended in an order of conviction and sentence which has been assailed by this appeal.

(3.) MRS. Pranali Kakade, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the information has not been recorded by P. W. 1 Natu when it was received by him and, therefore provisions of section 42 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. Shri Saste, Additional Public Prosecutor, pointed out that there is no substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant because P. W. 1 Natu gave that information to PI Chavan who directed API Sawant to record it in information register. He contended that the copies of the said information were dispatched to their superiors. This Court upholds the submission advanced on behalf of the prosecution and dismisses the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. It is not necessary that the Police officer who receives the said information in the public place or on the street should immediately record it there and there only. He can go and give that information to his superior and he may either himself reduce it in writing or direct somebody, his subordinate, to record it. What is important is that immediately it should be reduced into writing so as to give the authenticity to it and thereafter it should be dispatched to the superiors so as to assure the court that the said information has been reduced into writing and thereafter has been verified by the superiors and thereafter the raid has been effected.