ABDUL GAFOOR USMAN GANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mrs. Ansari for the Appellant -Original Accused No. 2 and Mr. More Additional p. P. for the State,

(2.) THIS Appeal is filed by the appellant original accused No. 2 against conviction under section 29 r/w Section 21 and Section 8 (c) of the narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("n. D. P. S. Act" for short) by which the accused were sentenced to suffer R. I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lac each in default of fine R. I. for six months and further conviction under Section 21 read with Section 8 (c) for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default R. I. for six months. Mrs, Ansari, Advocate arguing for the accused made only the following submissions and nothing more challenging the judgment of conviction. According to her the raid was conducted by P. I. Shewale and it was he who informed the accused of their right to be taken to the Magistrate or the nearest Gazetted officer as required under Section 50, but Mr. Shewale was not examined. P. W. 1 Bhaskarrao A. Jadhav who was examined has not been referred to as a person present at the relevant time. And the only panch P. W. 4 Nagraj S. Nawade who was examined by the prosecution has in his cross examination stated in paragraph 21 that:

(3.) FROM this evidence of P. W. 4, Mrs. Ansari contended that the evidence of the prosecution regarding compliance to Section 50 is liable to be rejected or disbelieved. According to her prosecution did not examine other panch and that there is no corroboration. Non examination of shewale is also fatal to the prosecution. The learned APP on the other hand contended that the name of P. W. 1 is not figuring in the panchanama. The station diary was produced and proved by the prosecution vide Exhibit 31. In the said station diary all the details regarding preparation of pre trap panchanama and the arrangements made for proceeding to carry out raid have been given in detail and in that station diary name of P. W. 1 is clearly mentioned as a person belonging to the raiding party. He also pointed out that other police officer has fully corroborated the testimony of P. M. 1 and therefore not finding the name of P. M. 1 in the panchansma, cannot be a circumstance to hold that p. W. 1 was not at all present. He also painted out that it was P. W. 1 who had received the information from the informer about coming of the accused at the particular spot and therefore it was impassible that P. W. 1 was not present.