LAWS(BOM)-1996-9-39

SYED SALIM SYED NOOR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On September 09, 1996
SYED SALIM SYED NOOR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by appellants-original accused nos. 1 and 2 against the judgment dated 20.4.92 in Sessions Trial No.14/90 on the file of Addl. Sessions Judge, Akola. We have heard the learned Counsel for appellants and the learned A. P. P. for State.

(2.) APPELLANTS and one more accused came to be prosecuted by the police before the Court below for offence punishable under section 20 (i) (b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The Prosecution case is as follows ;- It appears that on 20.11.89, Senior Inspector of Police P. W. 4 Abdul Sheikh attached to Ramdaspeth Police Station received some information about brown sugar being kept in the house of accused nos. 1 & 3.He directed PSI Prajapati to record the information in the police station diary and to arrange for a raid. Accordingly, PSI Mohan P. W. 3 secured panchas and went near the house of accused alongwith police Inspector. They entered the house and found appellants in the house. Their personal search was taken and a key was secured from the possession of accused no.2.From that key, a tin bag was opened which contained brown sugar. The same came to be seized under a panchnama. Both the accused-appellants came to be arrested. After returning to police station, samples of seized article were sent for examination to Chemical Analyser. Some witnesses were examined. After usual investigation, charge sheet was filed alleging that the appellants and other accused had committed offence punishable under section 20 (i) (b) of N. D. P. S. Act.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, original accused nos. 1 and 2 have come up with the present appeal. The learned counsel for appellants has questioned the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment. It is argued that the evidence on record suffers from contradictions and discrepancies regarding the actual seizure of brown sugar in the house in question. Then it was argued that the trial is vitiated for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of N. D. P. S. Act including Section 50.On the other hand, the learned A. P. P. supported the impugned judgment.