MEENA GOPALKRISHNA MUDILIYAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal is the judgment and order dated September 17, 1991 passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay, convicting the appellant under section 8 (c) read with section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) and sentencing her to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on March 2, 1987 at or about 9. 15 p. m. while Suresh Sawant (P. W. 3), a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to M. R. A. Marg Police Station, along with Police Head Constable Baburao Jadhav (P. W. 2) and other staff was on patrol duty they received an information and to work out the same they along with two panchas including Leela Ganesh (P. W. 1) went to a place opposite to the Dental College on P. DMello Road, Bombay. There they found the appellant standing near a hut. As they found her movements suspicious and as she could not give any satisfactory explanation for her presence there, they decided to search her person. Accordingly after observing all formalities P. W. 1 searched her and found a polythene bag tucked on the waist in her saree. In that bag was found 22 plastic vials with red caps and a smaller bag. Besides, they found some G. C. notes along with a one rupee coin, totalling Rs. 45/ -. The contents of the vials and the small plastic bag were emptied on a piece of paper and they smelt like heroin. On weighment the contents of the two were found to be 7 grammes. Two grammes thereof was packed as sample and the remaining 5 grammes were put in another packet. The 22 plastic vials, the polythene bag and the plastic bag were separately packed in a third packet while the cash was kept in another packet. All the packets were thereafter sealed and labelled and on those labels P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3, besides the other panchas, signed. Then panchanama was drawn on the spot by P. W. 3. Along with the articles and the appellant the Police Officers went to the police station and there P. W. 2 lodged a First Information Report on which a case was registered against the appellant. In course of the investigation P. W. 3 forwarded the seized sample to the Chemical Analyser for his report along with a forwarding memo. As the Chemical Analyser opined that the sample was heroin charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant.

(3.) THE appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and her defence was that she had been falsely implicated in the case.