HAMIDKHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 6-7-91 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Case No. 44/91 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentencing him to suffer R. I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default further R. I. for one year.

(2.) SHORTLY stated the facts of the case are that P. W. 8 Nathu Damaji, Head Constable of Dhantoli Police Station received information that one person is possessing Gard near Dhantoli Gymkhana ground. He took entry of the same in Police Station, Diary; informed Asstt. Commissioner of Police; collected two panchas for raid. P. W. 9 P. S. I. Shankar Sitikar was directed by the A. C. P. to accompany the raiding party. P. W. 9 also took station diary entry in Police Chowki Dhantoli at Serial Nos. 16 Exh. 32 and 17 - Exh. 33. When the raiding party reached Gymkhana ground, they saw accused sitting on a cart, which is hand driven. He was wearing green coloured shirt. His movements were suspicious. The raiding party questioned him about his name and whereabouts. Then the raiding party asked him for giving search of his person. They also offered themselves for search but the accused declined to do so. Therefore, the raiding party took his search and found 4 packets of Gard weighing 600 Ml. gm. in the right pocket of his full pant. Similarly ornaments worth Rs. 450/- and Rs. 30/- in cash were also found in his possession. The packets were seized and sealed. P. W. 9 prepared panchanama Exh. 17 and seized the property vide Seizure Memo Exh. 18. Thereafter, P. W. 9 took the property and accused to P. I. Deonath and requested him to affix the seal on the seized property. Property was deposited in the Malkhana. P. W. 4 carried one packet to Chemical Analyst under covering letter Exh. 21 dated 5-1-91 C. A. Report showed that the contents of the packet was of Heroin.

(3.) DURING trial prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses. P. W. 1. Mahadeo Salame, P. W. 2 Nandkumar and P. W. 3 Prabhakar, all panch witnesses did not support the prosecution case and, therefore, they were cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 denied to have made statements before the police recorded under section 161. Cr. P. C. They were contradicted with their statements. P. W. 4 Devidas, Constable is the carrier of the sample. P. W. 5 Deonathsinga, P. I. registered Crime No. 7/91 and deposited, Muddemal in the property room. P. W. 6 Pandharinath Head Constable was incharge of station Diary at the relevant time, and he received; deposited the information on telephone and made entry in the station diary. P. W. 7 Sitara H. C. was incharge of property room. P. W. 7 PSI Sitikar made entry in the station diary of the information received; deposited the muddemal in property room and also sent one packet to Chemical Analyst. He was also Investigating Officer in this case.