BALDEOSINGH S/O JAGANNATHSINGH SENGAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH POLICE STATION OFFICER P S NARKHED, NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 06.01.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court under NDPS Act, Nagpur in Special Criminal Case No.10/2014 convicting the appellants of the offence punishable under Section 20 read with Section 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, "NDPS Act") and sentencing them to suffer RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10, 000/- each, in default, to further suffer SI for three months.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that, complainant-API Santosh Shegaonkar (PW5) was attached to Police Station Narkhed on 10.10.2013. When he was on patrol duty along with his staff in the jurisdiction of Police Station, Narkhed, in a private vehicle, at Belona, he found one person (accused No.1) carrying a bunch of green leaves over his head. Those green leaves were like leaves of marigold flowers. The complainant suspected some foul-play and, therefore, he made enquiry with that person about those leaves. On this, accused no.1 threw the bunch on the road and fled away. The complainant stopped one person who was passing through the road and made enquiry with him. The said person told his name as Jaipal Rathod (PW3). The complainant made enquiry about the person who fled away. PW3 informed the complainant that the name of that person was Baldeosingh Sengar (accused no.1). The complainant suspected that those leaves must be of the contraband ganja, therefore, he informed the said fact to PSI-Gotmare of Police Station, Narkhed. The complainant then called for two panchas. He issued a written intimation letter to the panchas as well as to the photographer. In the meantime, PSI-Gotmare reached the place of the incident. He recorded the spot-cum-seizure panchnama of those leaves (Exh.7). On weighing those leaves, he found it to be 23.300 kg. The complainant then separated one plant from those leaves and sealed it. The weight of the same was 300 gms. The sample was sent to the Chemical Analyser for analysis. The complainant then recorded the detailed panchnama. On the next day, the complainant arrested accused no.1-Baldeosingh. It is the case of the prosecution that on 110.2013, accused no.1 Baldeosingh showed his willingness to point out the place where he had brought those cannabis plants. The accused no.1 brought the Police and Panchas to the field of accused no.2-Ishwarsingh. In the said field some ganja plants which were in dry condition, were found. Those dried ganja plants were taken charge by the complainant in the presence of panchas and accordingly seizure panchnama was prepared (Exh.38). The complainant then collected the 7/12 extract in respect of the agricultural field (Exh.39). The C.A. report in respect of the ganja plants was collected by the complainant. The complainant then informed PSI Gotmare about the incident (Exh.32). The offence was registered vide C.R. No. 3058/2013. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed in the Special Court; charge was framed; trial was conducted. On analysis of the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the learned Judge, Special Court convicted the appellants, as aforesaid.

(3.) I have heard Shri A.K.Bhangde, learned Advocate for the appellants; and Shri H.D. Dubey, learned APP for the respondent-State. With their assistance I have carefully gone through the record of the case. The learned Advocate for the appellants strenuously argued that the mandatory provisions of Sections 52-A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with by the investigating agency. He further submitted that no nexus has been established by the prosecution between accused no.1 and the contraband article. He further submitted that the prosecution has also failed to establish any nexus between accused no.1-Baldeosingh and accused no.2-Ishwarsingh. It was further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the field in which ganja plants were allegedly cultivated was owned by accused no.2-Ishwarsingh. Finally, he submitted that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case and the learned trial Judge has failed to analyze the evidence in its right perspective.