FIROZ GAFUR SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under section 20 (b) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to r. I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with a default stipulation to undergo further S. I. for three years in default of payment of fine, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, kopargaon by judgment dated 14-2-2005 in special Case No. 3 of 2004, by this appeal challenge their conviction and sentence.

(2.) Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal can briefly be stated thus : p. W. 4 A. P. I. Shrikant Jawle who was attached to Shirdi Police Station as an A. P. I, received information on 1-11-2003 that one gafur Jainuddin Shaikh was illicitly selling ganja in his house. Upon receipt of the said information, P. W. 4 A. P. I. Jawle contacted his, immediate superior i. e. Sub Divisional Police officer P. W. 5 in respect of the information which he had received and sought permission from him for conducting the raid. Thereafter an entry in the station diary came to be effected at sr. No. 48 at 3. 45 p. m. regarding the oral communication to the Sub Divisional Police officer regarding the information which had been received by P. W. 4 A. P. I. Jawle. The two panchas were thereafter summoned and their consent was obtained for acting as a panch at the time of raid. The entry in this behalf was also accordingly taken in the station diary at sr. No. 19 at Exh. 47. The members of the raiding party which consisted of the police officers and the two panchas then proceeded for the purpose of raid and reached near the house of the accused at Kalikanagar at about 4. 15 p. m. son of the accused No. 3 and wife of accused No. 3 were found in the house. The members of the raiding party introduced themselves and informed them the reason of the raid. Accordingly the request for searching their house was communicated to original accused Nos. 1 and 2 vide Exh. 28 and 29. Signatures of both the accused were obtained at Exh. 28 and 29. Thereafter search of their house was taken in the presence of the accused and 10 plastic bags of 1 kg. each was found at one place and two plastic bags containing 5 kg. of ganja were found at two different places in the house. Coupled with this, cash of Rs. 4,900/-was also found in the said house. Said ganja came to be weighed and it was found to weigh 20 kgs. Accordingly, entire ganja and cash of rs. 4,900/- which were found in the house of the accused came to be seized under a panchanama. Three samples of 100 grams each was obtained and it was sealed with the signature of the police and the panchas. The said three samples bore the signatures of P. W. 5 Sub Divisional Police officer Kisan Pawar and the two panchas. The remaining ganja also came to be seized and sealed in the presence of the panchas. The panchanama in respect of the entire event came to be drawn. The members of the raiding party returned to the Police Station and a complaint came to be lodged against the appellants at exh. 36. Upon lodging of the said complaint, an offence came to be registered and the investigation was handed over to P. W. 5 Sub divisional Police Officer Kisan Pawar. P. W. 5 sub Divisional Police Officer Kisan Pawar deposited the seized property in the Malkhana. Thereafter the seized property was sent through carrier P. W. 3 Balasaheb to the Chemical analyser along with the requisition at Exh. 33. The report of the Chemical Analyser is at Exh. 53. The report of the Chemical Analyser at Exh. 53 shows that the samples were tested and found to be ganja. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against the appellant came to be filed.

(3.) Trial Court vide Exh. 3 framed charge against the appellants for offence punishable under sections 20 (1) (b) and 25 of the ndps Act. The appellants denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case examined seven witnesses. On consideration of the evidence, the trial Court found that the prosecution had been able to establish the offence against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as aforestated.