PRADEEP RAMNIKLAL BHAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for greater Mumbai dated March 3, 2000 in N. D. P. S. Special Case No. 248 of 1992. The appellant was charge-sheeted and tried for offence under section 22 read with section 8 (c) of the Act and has been found guilty of that offence.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution case is that on 12th August, 1992 Police inspector Suresh Ramchandra Pawar (PW1) of Narcotic Cell of Ghatkopar received information about the description of the person who was suspected to deal in Mandrax tablets and in furtherance of his design, was expected to arrive near Alfa Medical Store in the evening between 6. 00 p. m. and 6. 30 p. m. The information so received was reduced into writing and communicated to Deputy commissioner of Police and arrangement for trap was made at the office. Two independent persons were called to act as panchas. After pre-trap formalities were completed, the raiding party reached near bus stop at Alpha Medical Store when person resembling the description of appellant/accused was spotted. He was moving in suspicious manner. After observing the conduct of the appellant for a while, the police party approached the appellant and informed their intention to take his search for suspected possession of Narcotics, i. e. Mandrax. He was also informed that he had right to be searched before Gazetted Officer or magistrate. After necessary formalities were completed, search was taken. It was found that the accused was carrying plastic bag, which contained eight plastic packets consisting of tablets. Some tablets were removed from the said packets and test was conducted on the spot with the help of Kit, which was taken by the police party. The tablet tested positive for Mandrax (Methaqualone ). The packets recovered from the plastic bag possessed by the appellant weighed about 4 kgs. Necessary formality of preparing samples to be forwarded to the Chemical analyser was also complied with. The appellant was arrested in connection with possession of contraband item. During the interrogation, on 14th August, 1992, appellant/accused desired to make statement which was recorded in the presence of two independent persons. The appellant/accused volunteered to point out place of concealment of substantive quantity of Methaqualone tablets. After the statement was recorded at the instance of the appellant/accused, police party along with the panchas proceeded to the place as per the instructions of the appellant/accused being Room No. 73, Parmanand Wadi, 25/b Thakurdwar road, mumbai. The room was found locked. It was opened by the appellant/accused with the available keys. On entering the room the appellant pointed out six cardboard boxes containing Mandrax tablets, one icon concealed in wooden box, which were taken charge of. The tablets found were tested on the spot with the help of Kit taken by the Police Officer. The tablets tested positive for Mandrax (Methaqualone ). The total weight of the tablets recovered from the said spot at the instance of the appellant was 99 kgs. Sample from the said bulk was taken for being forwarded to the Chemical Analyser for his opinion. The Chemical analyser's report was received which indicated the result of analysis as methaqualone Diphenhydramine Hydrochloride. The Chemical Analyser also indicated the percentage of Methaqualone present in the said samples. After investigation was complete, charge-sheet was filed. The appellant was tried by the Special Judge under the Act. Following charge was framed against the appellant :

(3.) THE prosecution examined seven witnesses. The prosecution also relied on the documentary evidence such as Chemical Analyser's reports and panchanamas to prove the charges against the appellant. The trial Court on analysing the evidence on record found that the prosecution has proved beyond doubt the involvement of appellant in the commission of the alleged offence and proceeded to convict the appellant for offence punishable under section 8 (c) read with section 22 of the Act and directed the appellant to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,0007- (Rupees one Lakh), in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.