HEMANT VYANKATESH AGWAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the accused who was convicted under section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.

(2.) THE incident on the basis of which the appellant came to be tried occurred on June 4, 1989. At about 4. 10 p. m. P. S. I. Khodke of Ambazari Police Station of Nagpur, received information that the appellant was in possession of brown sugar and used to sell on plot No. 269, Abhyankar Nagar, Nagpur. After receiving this information, he called two panchas and told them and Shri Thakre. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sitabuldi Zone and proceeded to the spot where he found the appellant. After offering their search to him, the appellant was searched and was found to be in possession of 65 small packets covered with plastic bag in the left pocket of his full-pant and an amount of Rs. 30/- in his right pocket. Finding that the packets contained white powder, 5 packets were separated as a sample and put in a separate cover while 60 packets were wrapped separately and both these packets were seized and sealed. A seizure memo was prepared and the appellant and the seized articles were brought to the Police Station at Ambazari and the property was deposited in the property room. The appellant was arrested and a complaint against him was lodged in the Police Station by P. S. I. Khodke. The five packets which were separately wrapped were sent for analysis to the Chemical Analyser who certified that it contained heroin. The appellant then came to be tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appellant while pleading not guilty to the charge, contended that P. S. I. Khodke and a police constable came to his house, called him out of the house and on the pretext that they had some work with him took him to the police station where his signatures were obtained on three blank papers and he was kept in custody without informing him what offence he had committed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the prosecution evidence to be credible and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) THE first contention of Shri V. R. Manohar, the learned Counsel for the appellant, in this Court was firstly that the evidence led at the trial was entirely unsatisfactory and unreliable, secondly the provisions of sections 42, 50, 52-A, 55 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act for short) being mandatory and their non-compliance vitiated both the Investigation and the trial and conviction of the appellant was, therefore, unsustainable.