DAULATRAM @DOLLY TRILOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants vide Judgment and Order dated 11th June, 2008, passed by the learned Special Judge (under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act'), City Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, in NDPS Special Case No.91 of 2007, have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-

(3.) Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the facts, there is non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. He submitted that a copy of the Station Diary entry (Exhibit - 48) was produced by PW6 - P.S.I. Manisha Shirke, for the first time in her evidence and that the said document was neither a part of the charge-sheet nor was it produced under Section 294 of Code of Criminal Procedure, during trial. He submitted that although it is alleged by PW6 - P.S.I. Manisha Shirke that a copy of the Station Diary entry was sent to the Cuffe Parade office from Kandivali office, there is no inward number on the said document i.e. (Exhibit - 49), to show that the same was received at the Cuffe Parade Office. He submitted that the officers who had made endorsements/signed the said document (Exhibit - 49) have also not been examined. This according to the learned counsel is fatal to the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution had also failed to examine the carrier of the said document i.e. copy of the Station Diary (computerized typed copy, Exhibit - 49) from Kandivali office to the Cuffe Parade office. Mr.Mishra further submitted that PW6 - P.S.I. Manisha Shirke had admitted in her evidence, that the seal which was used in the said case i.e. which was put on the samples/contraband that were collected at the time of the raid was the same that was affixed on the forwarding letter which was sent to the FSL. However, it appears from the record, that the forwarding letter shows that the inscription on the forwarding letter i.e. Exhibit - 22 is not the same as the inscription that is there on the samples.