LAWS(BOM)-2019-10-5

YUSUJI HINAGATA Vs. STATE

Decided On October 01, 2019
Yusuji Hinagata Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant impugns the judgment and order dated 25/01/2016, by which he has been convicted by the Special Judge of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Court, Mapusa of an offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(C) and 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short 'NDPS Act') for being found in illegal possession of 1.81 gms of LSD liquid and 568 gms of charas. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one year and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for one year, respectively. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Factual matrix can be summarised as follows:

(3.) The raiding team proceeded to the spot of incident in two private Swift cars bearing numbers GA-04-C-1860 and GA-03-C-6768. At around 00.25 hrs. they saw a male of the given description proceeding to the football ground on a scooter from Anjuna side. He alighted from the scooter and stood near it. Since his description matched with the information, he was intercepted by the raiding team led by PW8 Vidhya Pagui. She introduced herself and the other members of the team. On being asked, the said person disclosed his name as Yasuji Hinagata, son of Katsuni, aged 50 years, Japanese National. He was informed by PW8 Vidhya Pagui, about the information received by the Anti Narcotic Cell and about the personal search to be effected. PW8 Vidhya Pagui, thereafter, requested PW5 PI Suraj Halarnkar to conduct personal search of the appellant. PW5 PI Suraj Halarnkar informed the appellant that he had a right to be searched in presence of Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and, if he desires, a search will be conducted in the presence of Officer/s. However, the appellant declined the offer. The appellant had also declined to take search of the members of the raiding party when he was asked to do so.