ABDUL KARIM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-accused, who was tried for offences punishable under Sections 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and 18 and 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was convicted by the learned trial Judge and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 1,000 under section 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000 for offence under Section 18 and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000 for offence under Section 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985, which is hereinafter referred to as the "said Act". The order of conviction and sentence is challenged by the accused in criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1987, while the State has preferred Criminal appeal No. 219 of 1987 challenging the order of fine imposed by the learned trial Judge for offences both under Sections 18 and 20 (b) of the said Act.

(2.) WE have heard both the appeals simultaneously as the same were directed against the common order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge.

(3.) SHRI A. B. Naik, appearing for the accused contended that the conviction on all counts cannot be sustained. His argument is that the mandatory procedure prescribed in Chapter V of the said Act has not been complied with. The identity of the property is not properly established. The chemical Analyser's report is produced in this case, which does not consist of the competent authority, as per the Rules. His further contention is that the evidence on record produced by the prosecution does not justify the conviction at all.