MOHAMMED K A MOHIDIN Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in Special Criminal Case No.7/94 on the file of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Court who was convicted and sentenced by Judgment dated 19th October, 1994, for an offence under Section 20 (b) (i) and (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called "the Act"), is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE said Appeal was heard previously by another Division Bench, to which one of us (T. K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.) was a party. While arguing the Appeal on that occasion, the action of the lower court in objecting to certain questions put to P. W. 4, A. K. Gautam, during his cross-examination and also the non-production of the Station Diary, have been strongly criticised. In view of these objections, even though this Court has heard counsel for the appellant in detail, by an Order dated 26th September, 1995, it had directed the trial Court to recall the witness P. W. 4 for cross-examination and also asked the prosecution to produce the Station Diary, exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 391 Criminal Procedure Code, during the pendency and before the final disposal of the Appeal. We have gone through the order again. As per the aforesaid Order, the trial Court recalled P. W. 4 and allowed his cross-examination. THE station Diary of the Anti-Narcotic Cell of 8th December, 1993, was also produced by him. By the aforesaid Order, this Court had directed the trial Court to revert the records relating to the case including the additional evidence to this Court after complying with the directions contained in the said Order. Accordingly, the trial Court records have been received by this Court on 9th November, 1995. After the records were received back by this Court the Appeal has been again posted for hearing and the Appeal was accordingly heard finally on 18th July, 1996. THE said Order dated 26th September, 1995, is treated as part of this Judgment. THE entire facts of the case have been briefly narrated in the said Order. In the circumstances, we need not repeat the facts of the case herein again.

(3.) ANOTHER argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the recovery was made by the pancha because one of the panchas has pointed out to P. W. 3 the Mac. Dowell box. When it was opened by the appellant it was found that it contained charas. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that search and recovery by pancha cannot be called as a search and recovery made according to law. The argument in fact is based on misconception of facts. As pointed out earlier, pancha only found the box and therefore, it cannot be said that recovery was made by pancha. During the course of search or seizure, if any assistance or help is extended by one of the members of the raiding party, including pancha, it cannot be said that the recovery and seizure are not made by Police.