PREM SINGH HIJARILAL JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the judgment and order dated 31st August 2010 passed by the learned Special Judge under NDPS Act, Greater Bombay, Mumbai, in NDPS Special Case No.2 of 2009, thereby convicting the appellant/accused of th offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from directing him to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. He, however, is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

(2.) Facts in brief leading to the institution of the present appeal can be summarized thus :

(3.) I have heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellant/accused. He vehemently argued that seized muddemal i.e. the bulk quantity was never produced before the learned trial court for being inspected and identified by the concerned witnesses. This has caused great prejudice to the appellant/accused. The learned advocate for the appellant/accused submitted that it was the duty of the prosecution to produce that bag in which seized muddemal was kept before the learned trial court. The witness ought to have identified the bulk, while in the dock. This would have granted an opportunity to the appellant/accused to demonstrate that the contraband was seized from him.